The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap

[pmatic]

Originally Posted by grittyman20

One thing that I would definitely do if I was trying to come up with a better system is to get rid of caps on individual player salaries so no team could afford to have multiple superstars...If the salary cap is set at let's say $60 million, and Wade was making 30 million then there's no way Miami would've been able to the Big 3. NBA superstars are the worst compensated in all major professional sporting leagues

I'd give the "home team" the ability to offer an extra two years and money than other teams when negotiating with a player.

 

[pmatic]

Originally Posted by grittyman20

One thing that I would definitely do if I was trying to come up with a better system is to get rid of caps on individual player salaries so no team could afford to have multiple superstars...If the salary cap is set at let's say $60 million, and Wade was making 30 million then there's no way Miami would've been able to the Big 3. NBA superstars are the worst compensated in all major professional sporting leagues

I'd give the "home team" the ability to offer an extra two years and money than other teams when negotiating with a player.

 

[CP1708]

What if they are already yours? How high do you allow to pay Durant, Russ, Harden? Have to allow for all 3. Kobe/Pau/Bynum, Tim/Manu/Tony......where do you draw the line? There has to be a give. If you can't spend for other team stars, how can limit your own stars?

 

[CP1708]

What if they are already yours? How high do you allow to pay Durant, Russ, Harden? Have to allow for all 3. Kobe/Pau/Bynum, Tim/Manu/Tony......where do you draw the line? There has to be a give. If you can't spend for other team stars, how can limit your own stars?

 

[pmatic]

NBA, players hoping for one more shot at settlement

Despite the grim outlook of potentially lengthy and costly lawsuits, there are strong indications that NBA officials and attorneys representing the players want to take one more shot at reaching a settlement before the possibility of having close to a full season is devoured by the legal process.
Two people who have been briefed on the league's strategy told CBSSports.com that the NBA is holding out hope that a settlement can be reached in time for the season to begin no later than Christmas. One of those people said the process already is under way through what he described as "back-channeling," although sources from both sides professed no knowledge of such conversations.

A third person said that based on how vendor contracts and other financial arrangements were put in place, starting the season by Christmas would be optimal as far as preserving those relationships, and of course, revenues. Multiple people who have spoken with top NBA officials about the matter said it is understood that starting the season after Christmas is not viewed as a viable option.

"The 50-game season like they had in '98-'99, the league doesn't want that," one of the people briefed on the NBA's strategy said.

"I don't know that there's an appetite for a 50-game season," another person familiar with the league's position said.

Deputy commissioner Adam Silver did not respond to a request for comment on the league's approach Friday.

Neither Silver, commissioner David Stern, nor any of the NBA's legal representatives has spoken publicly since the players filed two antitrust lawsuits Tuesday alleging that the lockout is illegal -- one in California and one in Minnesota. But attorney David Boies, lead counsel for the players in the California case, said Tuesday that the goal of the lawsuits wasn't to see them to their finality -- which could take years and bring everyone involved to their knees -- but rather to "resolve these issues and allow the players to start playing."

"Certainly, everybody in this building wants to have people start playing right now," Boies said Tuesday during a media gathering at the players' Harlem offices. "If it were up to the players, games would be being played right now."

One top member of the legal team representing the players told CBSSports.com Friday that he had yet to receive a call from the NBA's legal representatives. Some contact and preliminary dialogue would be required soon if enough time were going to be available to reach a resolution in time for the season to begin Dec. 25.

The two people who have been in contact with NBA officials both used the word "optimism" to characterize the league's attitude with regard to reaching a settlement with the players that would save the season. However, it goes without saying that time is not on their side. It will take about a month from the day an agreement is reached until the season can start, and the process is further complicated by the fact that no collective bargaining agreement can be had until the players reform as a union and the owners recognize it as the bargaining representative for the players. Next Friday is Nov. 25, and Thursday is the Thanksgiving holiday.

"It's all about the calendar," said one attorney involved in the legal process.

According to two people familiar with the players' strategy, one of the reasons the union disclaimed interest Monday -- signaling a formal end to the collective bargaining relationship -- was to lay the groundwork for an accelerated legal schedule compared to the option of decertification. Had the players initiated the dissolution of the union, they would've had to wait 45-60 days for the National Labor Relations Board to schedule an election. By then -- December or January -- the chances of having more than a 50-game season would've been lost.

While the union leadership would've remained in power to continue negotiations until the decertification election was held, the one thing both sides agreed on when the bargaining talks reached their conclusion on Nov. 10 was that the existing format and dynamic were not working. Stern and the union's lead negotiator, attorney Jeffrey Kessler, had developed an unhealthy and destructive disdain for one another and their vitriolic relationship was standing in the way of reaching an agreement, two people involved in the negotiations told CBSSports.com.

Removing the talks from the negotiating room and sending them to the legal arena changed the dynamics and the negotiators involved. Kessler, for example, remains on the players' legal team, but it was telling that he was the fourth attorney listed on the players' antitrust lawsuit in California. Boies and his partner, Jonathan Schiller, are taking the lead role for the players, with Billy Hunter, executive director of the former players' association, also on the legal team.

On the league side, the Big Three (so to speak) are Paul Clement, NBA general counsel Rick Buchanan and Jeffrey Mishkin, along with attorneys from Proskauer Rose, the NBA's longtime outside law firm. Interestingly, Boies and Clement worked together on the NFL's side of the NFLPA's antitrust lawsuit and thus have a close working relationship. Clement also brings as much legal star power to the arena as Boies. The former solicitor general under president George W. Bush, Clement has argued more cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than any other lawyer in America since 2000, according to a story last month in the New York Times. (link: http://www.nytimes.com/20...ul%20clement&st=cse)

The NBA has 30 days to respond to the players' lawsuits, and a decision could come sooner than that in the league's own lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. In that case, filed in August, the NBA sought declaratory judgment that the lockout could not come under antitrust attack through a dissolution of the players' union. After the players took that step Monday, lawyers for both sides filed letters with the court updating their positions.

A legal settlement that could eventually take the form of a collective bargaining agreement would be negotiated among the lawyers. But while some key aspects of that dynamic have improved with the shift from bargaining to the courts, formidable impediments remain: the hard-line owners and hard-line players and agents, some of whom may be emboldened by their unprecedented step of disbanding the union and forcing Stern and the owners to answer for their actions in a court of law.

According to legal experts, neither side should feel utterly confident that it would win if the case proceeded to oral arguments, summary judgment, injunctions, appeals and the rest of the maze of legality that could leave all parties involved regretting their failure to negotiate a deal when they had the chance.

That precious window is closing fast. The majority of players will miss their second paychecks in about two weeks, bringing the carnage on their side alone to about $400 million -- with more to come even if a settlement were reached soon. The owners will soon face the reality of nearly $1 billion in squandered national TV revenues, another billion in gate receipts, and damaged relationships with other sponsors and business partners -- not to mention fans.

Right, the fans. Remember them? Or perhaps a better way to put it is, do you remember who you are?

Link

Another opportunity to be disappointed.

 

[pmatic]

NBA, players hoping for one more shot at settlement

Despite the grim outlook of potentially lengthy and costly lawsuits, there are strong indications that NBA officials and attorneys representing the players want to take one more shot at reaching a settlement before the possibility of having close to a full season is devoured by the legal process.
Two people who have been briefed on the league's strategy told CBSSports.com that the NBA is holding out hope that a settlement can be reached in time for the season to begin no later than Christmas. One of those people said the process already is under way through what he described as "back-channeling," although sources from both sides professed no knowledge of such conversations.

A third person said that based on how vendor contracts and other financial arrangements were put in place, starting the season by Christmas would be optimal as far as preserving those relationships, and of course, revenues. Multiple people who have spoken with top NBA officials about the matter said it is understood that starting the season after Christmas is not viewed as a viable option.

"The 50-game season like they had in '98-'99, the league doesn't want that," one of the people briefed on the NBA's strategy said.

"I don't know that there's an appetite for a 50-game season," another person familiar with the league's position said.

Deputy commissioner Adam Silver did not respond to a request for comment on the league's approach Friday.

Neither Silver, commissioner David Stern, nor any of the NBA's legal representatives has spoken publicly since the players filed two antitrust lawsuits Tuesday alleging that the lockout is illegal -- one in California and one in Minnesota. But attorney David Boies, lead counsel for the players in the California case, said Tuesday that the goal of the lawsuits wasn't to see them to their finality -- which could take years and bring everyone involved to their knees -- but rather to "resolve these issues and allow the players to start playing."

"Certainly, everybody in this building wants to have people start playing right now," Boies said Tuesday during a media gathering at the players' Harlem offices. "If it were up to the players, games would be being played right now."

One top member of the legal team representing the players told CBSSports.com Friday that he had yet to receive a call from the NBA's legal representatives. Some contact and preliminary dialogue would be required soon if enough time were going to be available to reach a resolution in time for the season to begin Dec. 25.

The two people who have been in contact with NBA officials both used the word "optimism" to characterize the league's attitude with regard to reaching a settlement with the players that would save the season. However, it goes without saying that time is not on their side. It will take about a month from the day an agreement is reached until the season can start, and the process is further complicated by the fact that no collective bargaining agreement can be had until the players reform as a union and the owners recognize it as the bargaining representative for the players. Next Friday is Nov. 25, and Thursday is the Thanksgiving holiday.

"It's all about the calendar," said one attorney involved in the legal process.

According to two people familiar with the players' strategy, one of the reasons the union disclaimed interest Monday -- signaling a formal end to the collective bargaining relationship -- was to lay the groundwork for an accelerated legal schedule compared to the option of decertification. Had the players initiated the dissolution of the union, they would've had to wait 45-60 days for the National Labor Relations Board to schedule an election. By then -- December or January -- the chances of having more than a 50-game season would've been lost.

While the union leadership would've remained in power to continue negotiations until the decertification election was held, the one thing both sides agreed on when the bargaining talks reached their conclusion on Nov. 10 was that the existing format and dynamic were not working. Stern and the union's lead negotiator, attorney Jeffrey Kessler, had developed an unhealthy and destructive disdain for one another and their vitriolic relationship was standing in the way of reaching an agreement, two people involved in the negotiations told CBSSports.com.

Removing the talks from the negotiating room and sending them to the legal arena changed the dynamics and the negotiators involved. Kessler, for example, remains on the players' legal team, but it was telling that he was the fourth attorney listed on the players' antitrust lawsuit in California. Boies and his partner, Jonathan Schiller, are taking the lead role for the players, with Billy Hunter, executive director of the former players' association, also on the legal team.

On the league side, the Big Three (so to speak) are Paul Clement, NBA general counsel Rick Buchanan and Jeffrey Mishkin, along with attorneys from Proskauer Rose, the NBA's longtime outside law firm. Interestingly, Boies and Clement worked together on the NFL's side of the NFLPA's antitrust lawsuit and thus have a close working relationship. Clement also brings as much legal star power to the arena as Boies. The former solicitor general under president George W. Bush, Clement has argued more cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than any other lawyer in America since 2000, according to a story last month in the New York Times. (link: http://www.nytimes.com/20...ul%20clement&st=cse)

The NBA has 30 days to respond to the players' lawsuits, and a decision could come sooner than that in the league's own lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. In that case, filed in August, the NBA sought declaratory judgment that the lockout could not come under antitrust attack through a dissolution of the players' union. After the players took that step Monday, lawyers for both sides filed letters with the court updating their positions.

A legal settlement that could eventually take the form of a collective bargaining agreement would be negotiated among the lawyers. But while some key aspects of that dynamic have improved with the shift from bargaining to the courts, formidable impediments remain: the hard-line owners and hard-line players and agents, some of whom may be emboldened by their unprecedented step of disbanding the union and forcing Stern and the owners to answer for their actions in a court of law.

According to legal experts, neither side should feel utterly confident that it would win if the case proceeded to oral arguments, summary judgment, injunctions, appeals and the rest of the maze of legality that could leave all parties involved regretting their failure to negotiate a deal when they had the chance.

That precious window is closing fast. The majority of players will miss their second paychecks in about two weeks, bringing the carnage on their side alone to about $400 million -- with more to come even if a settlement were reached soon. The owners will soon face the reality of nearly $1 billion in squandered national TV revenues, another billion in gate receipts, and damaged relationships with other sponsors and business partners -- not to mention fans.

Right, the fans. Remember them? Or perhaps a better way to put it is, do you remember who you are?

Link

Another opportunity to be disappointed.

 

[you big dummy]

Originally Posted by PMatic

Another opportunity to be disappointed.

CAN'T WAIT!

 

[you big dummy]

Originally Posted by PMatic

Another opportunity to be disappointed.

CAN'T WAIT!

 

[airjordan jb23]

Originally Posted by you big dummy

Originally Posted by PMatic

Another opportunity to be disappointed.

CAN'T WAIT!

This.

 

[airjordan jb23]

Originally Posted by you big dummy

Originally Posted by PMatic

Another opportunity to be disappointed.

CAN'T WAIT!

This.

 

[everysingletime]

Originally Posted by seasoned vet


 

I'm just letting you know that you're the first person in S&T I've had to put to ignore. 

 

[everysingletime]

Originally Posted by seasoned vet


 

I'm just letting you know that you're the first person in S&T I've had to put to ignore. 

 

[grittyman20]

Originally Posted by CP1708

What if they are already yours? How high do you allow to pay Durant, Russ, Harden? Have to allow for all 3. Kobe/Pau/Bynum, Tim/Manu/Tony......where do you draw the line? There has to be a give. If you can't spend for other team stars, how can limit your own stars?

As long as there's not a hard cap, what limitations would need to be put in place? Keep a similar system intact w/ Bird rights plus the luxury tax and I think everything else would fall into place.

 

[CP1708]

grittyman20 wrote:

---

CP1708 wrote:

---

What if they are already yours? How high do you allow to pay Durant, Russ, Harden? Have to allow for all 3. Kobe/Pau/Bynum, Tim/Manu/Tony......where do you draw the line? There has to be a give. If you can't spend for other team stars, how can limit your own stars?
As long as there's not a hard cap, what limitations would need to be put in place? Keep a similar system intact w/ Bird rights plus the luxury tax and I think everything else would fall into place.


But that's what I am getting at, the owners want a system where you can't scoop up other teams stars, they want to effectively kill free agency, to a degree.  Sign and trades, luxury tax teams, etc.  So then how do you go about setting a system where you can afford your own stars, but not be able to buy other teams players?  That's my point/question. 

They want either a hard cap, or huge luxury tax, well then teams won't be able to pay their players, players will be able to walk, so there's free agents, and players can CHOOSE where to play and can leave teams, ala Bron. 
So no hard cap, and lessen the luxury so you can keep your own players, so then my scenario, how many can you keep?  3 stars, 2 stars etc?  

The end result is always going to be the same, these small market crybabies are going to say they can't afford or keep up with big spenders, so how can they keep their core together?  Even if Cleveland could have offered Lebron one more year, would he have stayed?  He took LESS money to go to Miami, so point is already proved, guys will play where they want.  If Orlando has the option to offer one more year, or 20 more mil, does that mean Howard is definitively staying in ORLD?  

My bottom line is these guys are not cattle.  They have their own minds, their own free will, their own agendas.  Hence the "product" can do what it wants.  The owners want guarantees, cost certainty, profit assurances, and can't predict if their own product will stay more than 4-5 years before bolting.  Offer more money, they can still walk. Offer more years, they can still play elsewhere, and it's pissing the owners off. 
  

 

[pmatic]

Is the cure worse than the disease?

The basketball landscape is littered with symbols, but none more damning than the bad contract.

Rhetorically, there's a good reason for this. No matter how conscientiously you point out that bad contracts represent a small fraction of the whole, or that the volume of underpaid rookie-scale players and superstars far exceeds the number of bloated deals, the trump card is irrefutable:

"Jerome James," "Eddy Curry," "Gilbert Arenas," "Drew Gooden."

Bogeymen have always populated the political debate: the welfare recipient who drives a Cadillac. The failed CEO with his golden parachute. The undocumented immigrant who uses the emergency room and public school. The retailer who gouges a community after a natural disaster. The corporate jet owners who get tax breaks.

In that same spirit, basketball has James, Curry, Arenas, Gooden and the guy who slurped up your team's budget and then failed to live up to his contract. These players might be the far-reaching outliers, but they represent something fundamentally unfair to most fans:

Getting paid to do a job, then not doing it.

That transgression is particularly rotten when the job in question is playing a child's game, and this breach of public trust makes the overpaid player a very convenient talking point.

Of course, a bad contract doesn't birth itself. It starts off as an offer extended by a team soliciting the services of a player -- usually in free agency, sometimes as an extension of an existing deal. Either way, an NBA front office saw a vacant roster slot, thought enough of a player's potential to pursue him, then ultimately inked him to a lucrative deal. As much as we can fault the work ethic of someone who phones it in after signing such a deal, the job of vetting the character and projecting the performance of a player falls on team executives and the owners who employ them.

As much fun as it looks from the outside and the ranks of a fantasy league, general manager is a grueling, all-consuming, difficult position. The tenure of a general manager usually ends with a pink slip. Unless he's wearing a baseball cap in June standing alongside a star player who's lifting the Larry O'Brien Trophy, a GM's missteps always attract a brighter spotlight than the small victories. The chase for NBA talent is fraught with all kinds of hazards, and even the best human resource managers in the league are going to have an expensive blemish or two on their record.

For this reason, a push for shorter contracts has been a central part of the "system issues" conversation since well before the expiration of the previous collective bargaining agreement. Whether you interpret this as a means for bad teams to seek protection from themselves, a smart way to keep spending in check, or a way to prevent deadbeats from profiting without performing, reduced contract length is almost certain to find its way into the next CBA, whenever the deal happens to be executed.

In the owners' Nov. 11 proposal to the players' union, the length in contract of the mid-level exception signees for both taxpaying and non-taxpaying teams was reduced from five years to either four or three years. Maximum contract length for players with Bird rights was reduced from six years to five, and from five years to four for non-Bird players. In addition, option years for players earning greater than the league average were eliminated (which would effectively shorten contracts vis-a-vis the last CBA), as were sign-and-trade deals for taxpaying teams after Year 2 of contracts (ditto).

What are the repercussions of shorter contracts?

Shorter contracts also mean more turnover, which means more free agency. And free agency, lest we forget, has always been the vehicle for the creation of bad contracts.

On the surface, this change would provide a modicum of safety for front offices and ownerships. Never again will a player like Gooden earn a mid-level deal of five years and $32 million. In the new NBA, the maximum a mid-level player could be offered would be 4 years and $20 million. Curry's 6-year, $60 million contract would also be an impossibility.

In other words, execs' colossal mistakes will be trimmed in scale by about 20 percent and their medium-size stupid polls would be reduced by 35 to 40 percent. Curry would've merely been a 5-year, $50 million blunder, while Milwaukee would be on the hook for one year and $12 million less, assuming the Bucks would've opted to use the mid-level on Gooden -- and that Gooden wouldn't have had suitor willing to pay him more.

General managers would be inoculated from truly epic failures, but they'll also be filling more roster spots, more often in more feverish free agent markets. And that means they'll have more opportunities to make more mistakes of, albeit, slightly less detrimental consequences. Bad judgment could potentially be compounded in an off-season when a league has dozens of more roster spots to fill with free agents.

On the flip side, shorter contracts would punish crafty executives capable of locking in talent to favorable long-term contracts. With more roster slots to fill more frequently, smart execs will have more shot attempts to work their magic. In 2002, Joe Dumars signed Chauncey Billups to a 6-year, $34 million deal, possibly the best mid-level deal in history. In today's NBA, Dumars would be denied full reward for his prescience. The jury is still out on Wes Matthews in Portland, but his $7.2 million contract in the final year of his 5-year deal might prove to be a bargain. Under the new system, the Trail Blazers wouldn't enjoy the benefits of Matthews' potentially cost-efficient services.

In a league with shorter contracts and greater turnover, navigating the free agent market will be more important than ever. But if making sound judgments on extending free agent contracts is a task the league as a whole has mismanaged -- by the league's own admission -- is it reasonable to expect that to change with even more opportunities for mistakes?
Link

 

[Kimchi Papi]

CP1708 wrote: 

My bottom line is these guys are not cattle.  They have their own minds, their own free will, their own agendas.  Hence the "product" can do what it wants.  The owners want guarantees, cost certainty, profit assurances, and can't predict if their own product will stay more than 4-5 years before bolting.  Offer more money, they can still walk. Offer more years, they can still play elsewhere, and it's pissing the owners off. 
  
I'm a long time NBA fan. I'm not for either side. I will say the economic landscape has definately changed & teams can no longer expect revenues ever go back to where they were. I totally agree with the last statement above & the article PMatic posted. About 3/4 of the teams need help from themselves. They sign marginal players to monster contracts & draft so poorly.

Look at Memphis. In 2009, Rudy Gay & his agent was seeking a 5 year $50 mil extension however the Grizz turned them down in part due to the possible sale of the team (original story here). Fast forward a year later & they sign Gay to a 5 year $81.6 mil deal. How stupid is that? Then he get's injured & lost for the year while ending up going far into t playoffs. What gives?

On the other side, the NBA players need to understand the NBA is no longer generating revenues like they used to & probably never will get back to the old days. I can honestly see the 82 game season being shortened...

 

[CP1708]

Less games = less revenue, ie, never ever ever happening. 

On the other side, the NBA players need to understand the NBA is no longer generating revenues like they used to & probably never will get back to the old days
Huh?  Money is bigger now than it was years ago.  The game may not be the same, but the money is more. 

 

[Kimchi Papi]

CP1708 wrote:

---

Less games = less revenue, ie, never ever ever happening. 

On the other side, the NBA players need to understand the NBA is no longer generating revenues like they used to & probably never will get back to the old days
Huh?  Money is bigger now than it was years ago.  The game may not be the same, but the money is more. 

Not tryin' to beef. The statement of there being higher NBA revenues than years past is a misnomer. Operating costs are also higher than they ever been. Even for teams turning a profit, some of the the profit margins are razor thin.

Except for larger markets, no one is buying NBA tickets to regular season games & companies aren't buying corporate boxes either. Stern even talked about reducing the number of games played in the season like 3-4 months ago along with idea contracting teams.

 

[Kimchi Papi]

CP1708 wrote:

---

Less games = less revenue, ie, never ever ever happening. 

On the other side, the NBA players need to understand the NBA is no longer generating revenues like they used to & probably never will get back to the old days
Huh?  Money is bigger now than it was years ago.  The game may not be the same, but the money is more. 

Not tryin' to beef. The statement of there being higher NBA revenues than years past is a misnomer. Operating costs are also higher than they ever been. Even for teams turning a profit, some of the the profit margins are razor thin.

Except for larger markets, no one is buying NBA tickets to regular season games & companies aren't buying corporate boxes either. Stern even talked about reducing the number of games played in the season like 3-4 months ago along with idea contracting teams.

 

[CP1708]

psk2310 wrote:

---

CP1708 wrote:

---

Less games = less revenue, ie, never ever ever happening. 

On the other side, the NBA players need to understand the NBA is no longer generating revenues like they used to & probably never will get back to the old days
Huh?  Money is bigger now than it was years ago.  The game may not be the same, but the money is more. 

Not tryin' to beef. The statement of there being higher NBA revenues than years past is a misnomer. Operating costs are also higher than they ever been. Even for teams turning a profit, some of the the profit margins are razor thin.

Except for larger markets, no one is buying NBA tickets to regular season games & companies aren't buying corporate boxes either. Stern even talked about reducing the number of games played in the season like 3-4 months ago along with idea contracting teams.


Oh ok I got you, profit margin isn't the same, I got you.  Yeah that I can see.  But revenue itself is all time high, just profits aren't the same now, I agree. 

I would LOVE for them to contract teams, but I don't see less games, ever.  I don't think they can put the genie back in that bottle. 

  

 

[CP1708]

psk2310 wrote:

---

CP1708 wrote:

---

Less games = less revenue, ie, never ever ever happening. 

On the other side, the NBA players need to understand the NBA is no longer generating revenues like they used to & probably never will get back to the old days
Huh?  Money is bigger now than it was years ago.  The game may not be the same, but the money is more. 

Not tryin' to beef. The statement of there being higher NBA revenues than years past is a misnomer. Operating costs are also higher than they ever been. Even for teams turning a profit, some of the the profit margins are razor thin.

Except for larger markets, no one is buying NBA tickets to regular season games & companies aren't buying corporate boxes either. Stern even talked about reducing the number of games played in the season like 3-4 months ago along with idea contracting teams.


Oh ok I got you, profit margin isn't the same, I got you.  Yeah that I can see.  But revenue itself is all time high, just profits aren't the same now, I agree. 

I would LOVE for them to contract teams, but I don't see less games, ever.  I don't think they can put the genie back in that bottle. 

  

 

[nychiphophippo]

Originally Posted by grittyman20

One thing that I would definitely do if I was trying to come up with a better system is to get rid of caps on individual player salaries so no team could afford to have multiple superstars...If the salary cap is set at let's say $60 million, and Wade was making 30 million then there's no way Miami would've been able to the Big 3. NBA superstars are the worst compensated in all major professional sporting leagues

I've thought about that. It would definitely solve the competitive balance aspect, but it would destroy the middle income players of the nba.

 

[nychiphophippo]

Originally Posted by grittyman20

One thing that I would definitely do if I was trying to come up with a better system is to get rid of caps on individual player salaries so no team could afford to have multiple superstars...If the salary cap is set at let's say $60 million, and Wade was making 30 million then there's no way Miami would've been able to the Big 3. NBA superstars are the worst compensated in all major professional sporting leagues

I've thought about that. It would definitely solve the competitive balance aspect, but it would destroy the middle income players of the nba.

 

[|A-Man|]

I liked that idea of making teams play other teams in their division more, then other losing teams, and then other conference teams as far as competitive balance goes. Couple that with that 1st round draft idea and average teams will get better.

 

[|A-Man|]

I liked that idea of making teams play other teams in their division more, then other losing teams, and then other conference teams as far as competitive balance goes. Couple that with that 1st round draft idea and average teams will get better.