Major misconceptions regarding the labor dispute between Owners and NBA's Players

[2LeTTeRS]

History doesn't suggest Stern will get most of what he's demanding. I want to enter this profession so I study it religiously. What I've noticed is Stern talks tough like this every time there a CBA is about to expire, and media members and fans eat it up, believing that Stern is this all-powerful dictatorial leader and that the players will yield to anything that he wants.

The problem is that unlike the picture the media portrays, the NBA has a very strong union. Billy Hunter is a solid leader who is not going to bow down to Stern. The NBA is the sports league where the players are more visible than any other sport and because of that it is very much a player-driven league. I don't see huge sweeping changes happening.

Yes I know, it it sounds good in theory but unfortunately that’s not how it goes. Billy Hunter knows that the fans tune in to watch his players play not because of the Owners, and uses that fact to negotiate with strength. Want proof, just look at what happened the last time there was an opportunity to negotiate the CBA. According to Chad Ford this a list of demands the Owners had back in 2005 >>>>>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...had&id=2062066

1) An increase of the age limit of 20 or 21 (was 18 prior to the new CBA),
2) Reducing the maximum length of contracts would be 3 or 4 years if re-signing (was previously 6 or 7 years),
3) Reduction in the maximum raises in contracts to 5% (down from 10 to 12.5%), and
4) Teams would be subjected to a super luxury tax if they exceeded the cap too much.


Of those things here's what the Owner's and Player's actually agreed to:

1) Age limit of 19,
2) Maximum contract length went down to 5 or 6 years,
3) Raises went from 10% to 8% if go to new team; and 12.5% to 10.5% if re-sign,
4) No super luxury tax imposed,
5) The players slice of the revenue pie was guaranteed at 57%, and
6) The formula used to calculate salary went up from 48% to 51% of revenues, (raising the amount of money each team could spend on players pretty substantially).

Keep that in mind when you look at the upcoming labor dispute between the Owners and the Players. I believe there is a great deal of misinformation out there and a lot of it seems unfairly biased towards the Owners.

[2LeTTeRS]

So with that in mind here goes my thoughts of the important issues that will come up during this summer’s lockout. Enjoy.

COMPARISON OF UNITY OF OWNERS vs. PLAYERS

FAN #1: Look, the NBA Union is about to be busted. 2/3 of the NBA Owners wont stand being farm teams to bigger markets when those big markets have just as much ability to draft and cultivate their own talent.

MY RESPONSE: Too bad the other 1/3 of the Owners have power as well. Not to mention their teams are in big markets and have more power and money than the average owner. Do you really think Dolan and Buss and the Arison’s who own the Heat are going to willingly agree to a hard cap? Do you think they're going to start sharing their revenue from local TV deals so teams like the Kings and Hornets can compete on an even playing field with them? I don't.

I seriously believe that the notion that at the end of the day all the Owners will present a united front while the players won't is ridiculous. In February or March when ESPN was beginning their coverage of the NFL labor dispute they had Teddy Bruschi on. The Sportscenter anchor continually tried to get him to rip the Players Union and Bruschi wouldn't. He said they're doing the right thing, the Players should never give up money/rights because if they do the Players of the future will never get them back. Bruschi said they should fight tooth and nail to make sure they don't give back a penny, because their not just representing themselves but future generations of Players.

If I were a leader in the NBA Players Union I would have e-mailed the Youtube link of that interview to my entire union. If the leadership does their job and stars continue their involvement in negotiations I could see the loyalty and sense of responsibility to their brothers being greater within the union than with the Owners.

THE NBA NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP STAR PLAYERS FROM “LEBRON-ING” THE TEAM THAT DRAFTED THEM

FAN #2: The NBA needs to do something about teams losing out on star players ditching their teams to go to big markets when their contracts are up. If this is allowed only 6 or 7 teams will have legit chances to win each any every year.


MY RESPONSE: Every year the NBA has always had only 6 or 7 true contenders. I think everyone will agree that the league is better now than it was 5-6 years back when:

- Kobe was playing with scrubs like Smush Parker and Kwame Brown in LA, and demanding to be traded or to have his teammates shipped out for better players
- KG was surrounded by losers in Minnesota,
- T Mac was wasting his prime with the Magic,
- AI had a one-man team in Philly,
- Vince Carter was in Toronto half-assing it because his team sucked

POSSIBLILTY OF FRANCHISE TAG OR OTHER MECHANISM TO RESTRICT PLAYER MOVEMENT

FAN #3: I hate seeing star players ditch the city that loves them when they become free agents to go to greener pastures. The NFL got it right - teams should be able to slap players who are about to be free agents with a franchise tag or something to keep them as long as they want.

MY RESPONSE: I don’t get the view that players give up basic rights that people in all other walks of life have just because they make more money. A player who honors the commitments of his contract until it expires should have the flexibility to explore his options once it ends.

If the Owners want to ensure superstar players stay home, then they should do their jobs and surround those players with talent. There is no need to give them more control over the players, plus many of the proposals people have suggested (i.e. eliminating free agency) would not be legally valid. The only options that I could imagine that would pass legal scrutiny is to impose a franchise tag or to change the triggering conditions for restricted free agency.

First let’s explore franchise tagging in the NBA. I see no way that the players will go for it, and think a large chunk of Owners (i.e. those from large market teams) would be opposed as well. The only way to make this idea slightly more palatable is to give the players who are franchised a substantial raise over the maximum allowable deal they could sign as free agents.

That leaves option #2, expanding restricted free agency. As it stands now star players tend to only hit restricted free agency once in their career, when their rookie deals end. I could see the Owners pushing to try to get players to still be restricted after their 2nd contract ends as well. This way the Owners get the opportunity to match or threaten they will match so that they get compensation when players leave during free agency, while the players don't give up any money, and still get to test free agency. While I still see the Players being hesitant to agree to this option, it seems more agreeable than allowing franchise tagging.

POSSIBLILTY OF HARD CAP BEING IMPLEMENTED

FAN #4: Can the Knicks add another star in free agency. They already have 2 huge commitments to All Stars (Melo and Amare) and have to pay Balkman in 2012. I’m afraid that when the NBA adds a hard cap they won’t be able to add anyone.

MY RESPONSE: Even if a hard cap (a salary level which no team can exceed) is instituted expect it to be nearer to the luxury tax threshold ($70.307 mil) than the current cap ($58.044 mil).

Why do I believe this? Well the average salary for a player in the NBA is slightly above $5 mil a year. Seeing that I believe the Players will do everything possible to keep that salary near the same, then the cap will have to be that high to accommodate the player’s salaries.

[GOBB]

Increase the age of players entering the draft.


I also dont see the point of a luxary tax if there are teams who have no problem paying it. I thought the idea was to have teams be scared off paying double the dollar. Yet you see quite a few teams every year since it was implemented paying it. I think finding a way to limit or just outright stop teams from going over it would create parity in the NBA. What do you think?

[2LeTTeRS]

Increase the age of players entering the draft.

Personally as long as players can't make money in the NCAA, I'll never support the notion of players over the age of 18 being stopped from enterring the league. Just my opinion though.

Check this thread >>>>
Jay Bilas - Colleges SHOULD NOT pay players; but they SHOULD get paid endorsements

I also dont see the point of a luxary tax if there are teams who have no problem paying it. I thought the idea was to have teams be scared off paying double the dollar. Yet you see quite a few teams every year since it was implemented paying it. I think finding a way to limit or just outright stop teams from going over it would create parity in the NBA. What do you think?

I disagree, I think that in the NBA the luxury tax scheme is the best system in American sports, forming a good balance between the MLB's no cap and the hard cap of the NFL. I feel that if if an owner wants to run a team he should be able to put as much of his money in that investment as he chooses. To me the fact that some Owners want to put so much money into the league that they are not stopped no matter how big the luxury tax bill is, is a great thing.

Why? Yes some people prefer parity, but in the NBA where one elite player can make more of an impact than any other sport there will only be 8-10 contenders no matter how the CBA is constructed. I'd rather those contenders be good from top to bottom instead of 1 or 2 great players carrying trash. For all the hate the Heat of generated I think they've proved that "super-teams" create interest (see the ratings for proof), and in the long-run the league benefits as the money that those Owner's pay into the luxury tax pot is distributed to teams with lower payrolls, giving them more capital to operate with in future years.

[fatboy11]

Great read. Good job.

[Apocalyptic0n3]

I'll hit on a few of these points. Fair warning: I am an avid hockey fan and a lot of my examples will be from there.

IRT: Hard Cap
It will happen. The NBA wants to cut salaries and Stern has said he wishes to do it in two ways: cut max contracts, thereby decreasing the value of every player in the league, AND imposing a hard cap. I have read things as insane as a $50 million hard cap and $10 million max contract. That would never happen.

Now, Stern is intelligent, much more intelligent than the majority of people give him credit for. He's throwing both options out there so that when it comes time to compromise, he can say, "Well, choose one of the two." The players will almost certainly choose the hard cap. It is the smarter of the two choices. Their players are not devalued at all, especially since such a hard cap would be set at roughly $64 million (dead center between current soft cap and luxury tax threshold), per reports, and the cap would likely continue to rise as revenue does. In ten years when they come back to negotiate again, they can tell the NBA that either the system does not work or that the players should be paid more money, and raise the hard cap. In the end, they will have to choose at least one of the two and the hard cap is the best option. (a quick after thought: having a hard cap set higher than the soft cap would also raise the cap floor, meaning that players on the lower tiered teams would HAVE to be paid more. A hard cap might be in the players' best interest now that I think about it)


IRT: Franchise Tagging
It won't happen. It's a flawed system in the NFL and it would be even worse in the NBA where you can, with a single interview, force your team to trade you. Trades are not as easy in the NFL so it isn't quite as bad. Instead, they will compromise on a stronger restricted free agency.

I foresee a team being able to pay a player that they drafted and developed more than any other team can (much like current Bird Rights, though those I think will disappear in favor of something like this), and the additional money will not count against the cap. Basically, a team will be able to sign their star and still be able to sign people to surround him. I hope they put in a check and balance so that the extra money the player is paid is always paid by the team that signed them to it, even after the player is traded.

I also believe they will look to compensate teams that lose their free agents, much like the NHL. Right now, Red Wings fans (I am from Detroit) are foaming at the mouth at the possibility of the Wings signing Nashville star defenseman, Shea Weber. Doing that would cost us dearly, probably $7 million a year (in hockey, 21-24 guys get paid less than 12-15 NBA players do) in addition to our first round draft pick for the next 4 drafts (there are 7 rounds in the draft, though, so it isn't completely disabling for the team). I hope the NBA follows the same format. Cleveland would be able to completely rebuild their team through the draft in just one season with that (they would have the 1st, 2nd/4th, and the 28th or whatever).


IRT: Owners vs. Players
Owners are on the same team here. They want to limit what players can get. If they have to stop buying championships, so be it. 6 years ago, the NHL lost an entire season over this. The Owners demanded a hard cap and the players refused. An entire season... lost. The biggest heralds of the hard cap? The owners of the biggest teams like the Wings, Rangers, Avalanche, Stars, Devils, and Maple Leafs, all teams that had recently been accused of buying championships (and all succeeding except the Rangers and Leafs) pushed it to realization. You may think the bigger owners like a soft cap with a luxury tax, but you're wrong. They don't like paying $40 million for a $20 million player any more than you would like to be charged $10 for your $5 lunch.


IRT: Using the cheaper teams as "farm teams"
This is where Stern MUST step up and throw his weight around. The NBDL is a nice little league and he has done some really good work with it. It is time to treat it as a farm league, to really take that "development" part of the title seriously. Each team is assigned a D-league team that they will share with no more than one other team (some teams already have such relationships to begin with and there are only 16 teams, so sharing is necessary) and prospects can be sent there to mature. Someone like Darko or Thabeet or Morrison would never have been pushed out there too early. They would be trained by coaches whose specialty is actually developing players, just like any other farm league. I also think it should be used as a rehab league for injured vets (who agree to do it, obviously). Could you imagine how great it would be for one of those teams to get the first two or three games of Yao or Oden's next comeback attempt? Or how great it would be for the NBA team to be able to send a Arenas or McDyess or Hill down to the d-league in order to get back into the feel of things instead of hurting them in the standings? Doing this may even allow the players to avoid a 20-21 year age minimum that the owners are again pushing for, saying that 19 or 20 year old would only play x amount of games in the NBA and spend the rest of the time in the NBDL being mentored and trained. It's a longshot, but I really do hope it happens.

[Laimbeer_Rodman]

Nicely done

[Bricklayer]

If all of those ideas go through, then you'd rather see a league of about 16 teams stacked with more talent. From a general NBA fan's perspective, that's not a bad idea. Nearly every regular season game would be high quality basketball and the playoffs would be insane.

But that would also mean the death of pretty much half the league. Fans in Minnesota, Sacramento, Portland, Utah, Memphis, et al would never again see a live basketball game unless they visited one of the larger markets. And since the majority of people are more casual NBA fans who go to the games for the experience and usually don't care to watch other teams play on TV, I'd venture to say that the NBA would actually LOSE more fans than they would gain by shrinking the league to a few super teams.

The NFL has 30 teams (with the exception of the typical Raiders, Bengals and Lions) whose fans actually believe their team has a chance to win the title at the start of every season. For the sake of the league's survival, the NBA must find a way for owners to be able to keep their stars in the small markets who draft them by providing some benefit we haven't seen yet (I'm not particularly fond of the "franchise tag" idea).

[Apocalyptic0n3]

If all of those ideas go through, then you'd rather see a league of about 16 teams stacked with more talent. From a general NBA fan's perspective, that's not a bad idea. Nearly every regular season game would be high quality basketball and the playoffs would be insane.

But that would also mean the death of pretty much half the league. Fans in Minnesota, Sacramento, Portland, Utah, Memphis, et al would never again see a live basketball game unless they visited one of the larger markets. And since the majority of people are more casual NBA fans who go to the games for the experience and usually don't care to watch other teams play on TV, I'd venture to say that the NBA would actually LOSE more fans than they would gain by shrinking the league to a few super teams.

The NFL has 30 teams (with the exception of the typical Raiders, Bengals and Lions) whose fans actually believe their team has a chance to win the title at the start of every season. For the sake of the league's survival, the NBA must find a way for owners to be able to keep their stars in the small markets who draft them by providing some benefit we haven't seen yet (I'm not particularly fond of the "franchise tag" idea).

Take it from someone who lives in Detroit, Lions fans believe their team can win the Super Bowl every year regardless of how bad it is. We lost the first five games that year we went winless and people still thought we could win it all. Hell, up until last season, we sold out every single game we played in Detroit.

[2LeTTeRS]

Apocalyptic0n3 and fatboy11 thanks. I really appreciate the reads.

Apocalyptic0n3 if you'd like we can go back and forth on all your points, but first I want to speak about your views on the D-League.

IRT: Using the cheaper teams as "farm teams"
This is where Stern MUST step up and throw his weight around. The NBDL is a nice little league and he has done some really good work with it. It is time to treat it as a farm league, to really take that "development" part of the title seriously. Each team is assigned a D-league team that they will share with no more than one other team (some teams already have such relationships to begin with and there are only 16 teams, so sharing is necessary) and prospects can be sent there to mature. Someone like Darko or Thabeet or Morrison would never have been pushed out there too early. They would be trained by coaches whose specialty is actually developing players, just like any other farm league. I also think it should be used as a rehab league for injured vets (who agree to do it, obviously). Could you imagine how great it would be for one of those teams to get the first two or three games of Yao or Oden's next comeback attempt? Or how great it would be for the NBA team to be able to send a Arenas or McDyess or Hill down to the d-league in order to get back into the feel of things instead of hurting them in the standings? Doing this may even allow the players to avoid a 20-21 year age minimum that the owners are again pushing for, saying that 19 or 20 year old would only play x amount of games in the NBA and spend the rest of the time in the NBDL being mentored and trained. It's a longshot, but I really do hope it happens.

I agree completely. I've written a few articles on this subject myself Whats next for the D-League? My proposed rule changes and Proposal to Fix the D-League. I tried to get in contact with Billy Hunter and someone from the NBA league office to give them my idea but all I got was told "thanks for your interest." I really don't think either side understands how powerful of an asset the D-League could be for the NBA.

[Bricklayer]

I foresee a team being able to pay a player that they drafted and developed more than any other team can (much like current Bird Rights, though those I think will disappear in favor of something like this), and the additional money will not count against the cap. Basically, a team will be able to sign their star and still be able to sign people to surround him. I hope they put in a check and balance so that the extra money the player is paid is always paid by the team that signed them to it, even after the player is traded.

Teams can only go over the hard cap for their own players... Love this idea! And nice touch on the original team paying the remainder of the contract. Hopefully that'll make owners think twice before committing themselves to crippling contracts (i.e. AK47 and Grant Hill).

[Bricklayer]

Take it from someone who lives in Detroit, Lions fans believe their team can win the Super Bowl every year regardless of how bad it is. We lost the first five games that year we went winless and people still thought we could win it all. Hell, up until last season, we sold out every single game we played in Detroit.

Then this shows that whatever the NFL is doing is working. Even if it might be a false sense of hope, that's the beauty of this business - keeping the fans coming back every year expecting something different.

[2LeTTeRS]

If all of those ideas go through, then you'd rather see a league of about 16 teams stacked with more talent. From a general NBA fan's perspective, that's not a bad idea. Nearly every regular season game would be high quality basketball and the playoffs would be insane.

But that would also mean the death of pretty much half the league. Fans in Minnesota, Sacramento, Portland, Utah, Memphis, et al would never again see a live basketball game unless they visited one of the larger markets. And since the majority of people are more casual NBA fans who go to the games for the experience and usually don't care to watch other teams play on TV, I'd venture to say that the NBA would actually LOSE more fans than they would gain by shrinking the league to a few super teams.

I'd rather the system stay the way it is, I never said anything about cutting teams. My point was that the NBA is not the NFL, there are just not enough elite talents to distribute among all 32 teams to truly create parody. Because of that I see creating new rules to limit movement by players is unneccesary.

Instead of evening the playing field "parity" in the NBA is largely been the fact that teams can either afford to have a collection of overpaid mediocre talent or 2 good players and trash. That does not make for an entertaining product.

The NFL has 30 teams (with the exception of the typical Raiders, Bengals and Lions) whose fans actually believe their team has a chance to win the title at the start of every season.

Fans may think that, but true educated football minds can normally call 8 or 9 of the top 12 teams in the league before any games are played. Yes there may be a few more surprises in the NFL but there really aren't that many generally.

For the sake of the league's survival, the NBA must find a way for owners to be able to keep their stars in the small markets who draft them by providing some benefit we haven't seen yet (I'm not particularly fond of the "franchise tag" idea).

And the Owner's do have a way to keep players home, and that simply is to do a good job of running their teams and surrounding those players with a good supporting cast and good coaching staffs/front offices.

[Bricklayer]

I'd rather the system stay the way it is, I never said anything about cutting teams. My point was that the NBA is not the NFL, there are just not enough elite talents to distribute among all 32 teams to truly create parody. Because of that I see creating new rules to limit movement by players is unneccesary.

Instead of evening the playing field "parody" in the NBA is largely been the fact that teams can either afford to have a collection of overpaid mediocre talent or 2 good players and trash. That does not make for an entertaining product.



Fans may think that, but true educated football minds can normally call 8 or 9 of the top 12 teams in the league before any games are played. Yes there may be a few more surprises in the NFL but there really aren't that many generally.



And the Owner's do have a way to keep players home, and that simply is to do a good job of running their teams and surrounding those players with a good supporting cast and good coaching staffs/front offices.

So that's the problem then - there isn't enough talent for all 30 teams to create a quality league of parity. Is it possible for EVERY owner to do a good job of surrounding their stars with talent when there isn't enough talent to go around? There will always be some owners who win and some who lose.

Now, if we leave it up to the players to choose where they want to play and the only factors they have to weigh are: money, the talent around them and the location, then small markets are inevitably screwed if there is no hard cap. Larger markets (and wealthy owners) can simply pay whatever they want to get whoever they want, thereby sucking the talent pool dry. And even if smaller markets are able to pay the same amount (or slightly more in the Larry Bird rule), they still lose out to the larger markets because of their "undesirable location" and inability to attract talented free agents.

I totally see where you're coming from, though - your idea would certainly create a more entertaining product. It's essentially capitalism at work and letting the chips fall where they should. But if this league hopes to sustain smaller markets, then there needs to be a more strict plan in place that benefits everyone at the behest of the large market owners.

[niko]

There won't be meaningful contraction. It doesn't matter if people think it is better, etc. - there won't be contraction. So if you are reasonably discussing the new CBA, there is no point in including contraction.

I think the most interesting thing is the owners. I don't think there will be a hard cap, it doesn't really help save money unless there are salary reductions, reductions in contract length, etc. which is why i think that is ultimately what will happen. Lower soft cap, similar structure, shorter contracts at less money.

Why i say the owners is i doubt they have a consensus on what they want. Think Orlando. They want something that guarantees Howard cannot bolt. Think NJ. They want something that allows him to bolt, but if they could give DWill some incentives that would be nice. two teams with different agendas. Which does Stern push?