PDA

View Full Version : On big day for NBA, why is the max so sacred?



Shmontaine
10-18-2011, 04:24 PM
http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32801973


NEW YORK – A few thoughts on a very important day for the NBA:

• What does it mean that commissioner David Stern is giving mediator George Cohen one day to solve all the league’s problems before breaking away for two days of Board of Governors meetings? On one hand, it’s unrealistic that Cohen and his colleague, Scot Beckenbaugh, could do in one day what Stern and Billy Hunter haven’t been able to do in two years. On the other, it creates a sense of urgency – without which nothing ever gets done in negotiations. “That’s David’s style,” one league executive said. “He likes deadlines.”

• There are rumblings in the agent community and among team executives that the hawkish position of the players’ association – its line in the sand at 53 percent and inflexibility over competitive aspects of the system – is a recipe for doom. “Sad to say, but I think (the owners) just want to sit the season out,” one prominent personnel man said. The involvement of superstars Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce in the negotiations two weeks ago shook some team executives who believed the two sides were on their way to a deal. “It baffles me that a union of 400 guys is fighting for one or two guys, whereas hundreds of guys are the ones taking the loss,” another team executive told CBSSports.com.

• Several executives fear that Hunter and union president Derek Fisher have been swayed by star players and their agents into taking a hard-line position that could be devastating to hundreds of rank-and-file players if the season were lost. “The thing that they’re fighting for right now is not the middle-of-the-road guy, and that's who you would think the union would be fighting for,” one of the executives said. “They’re fighting for the max guys right now or the max-to-be guys.”

• Longtime agent Steve Kauffman, a player agent during the 1998-99 lockout who now represents coaches and management executives, agrees that not enough time has been spent examining how much money and system flexibility could be freed up by reducing max contracts. “The deal is there to be made,” Kauffman said. “It's ridiculous. The main thing is, tell me what the max salaries are going to be. Because if you want to really help your union, who does the union represent? Whose interests are they protecting? If it's supposed to be everybody, then you've got to strike a balance.”

• Among the negotiating points that the league has said it’s conceded is the initial goal of curtailing the size and length of max contracts. Kauffman believes that’s gotten in the way of getting a deal. “You can make the argument that the stars deserve to be paid 75 or 80 percent of the payroll,” Kauffman said. “But if the max got a 15 percent cut, there would be more room to do those contracts that (the agents) are complaining they can't do. … The superstars are always going to get theirs through endorsements and other avenues.”

• Does this point about max salaries bear out in the math? A 15 percent reduction in future max salaries would represent only 1 percent of BRI annually – about $54 million based on the 21 players who currently make $15 million or more. But over a six-year deal, that’s roughly $325 million – the difference between a players’ share of 52 percent, which sources indicate the union would accept, and 51 percent, a figure that owners likely also would agree to. If the league’s biggest stars took a pay cut, or at least agreed that future max contracts would be reduced by 15 percent, the difference could easily be made up by giving those players a bigger share of licensing money, which currently is divided equally among the players regardless of whether you’re Kobe with millions in jersey sales or Sasha Vujacic, whose only jersey sale likely was transacted by his finance, Maria Sharapova.

UPDATE:

• Some small-market executives are fearful that the amnesty provision being negotiated will turn out to be only another advantage for big-market teams. The provision would allow teams to release an underperforming player and spread the money left on his contract over twice the years remaining, plus one, for cap purposes. One small-market GM envisions this provision being used by big-market teams to collect players cast off by small-market teams. "It's a great idea until Baron Davis goes to Miami," the GM said.

• Do not underestimate the owners' obsession with creating a competitive system that mimics the NFL, through whatever vehicle gets them there.
"In the NFL, every team has a chance," one team executive said. "That's what makes it great, and we don't have that. We're like Euro League. Until we have revenue sharing and a hard cap, we not going to be a fair league."

• One final note on the two weeks of games that have been canceled so far. Given reports that league scheduling guru Matt Winick is working on a host of contingency plans, including an 82-game schedule that would begin Dec. 1, it isn’t a foregone conclusion that those games are lost forever. Of importance Tuesday in the mediation session with Cohen is that those games could enter the equation as a valuable bargaining chip. If the two sides reach another impasse on the BRI split, they could be enticed to move closer by getting back the $200 million each side “lost” when those games were canceled.

couple interesting tidbits... they can't really be considering keeping an 82 game season, can they??? 13 games in 15 days or something dumb like that...

Wade>You
10-18-2011, 04:53 PM
Do not underestimate the owners' obsession with creating a competitive system that mimics the NFL, through whatever vehicle gets them there. "In the NFL, every team has a chance," one team executive said. "That's what makes it great, and we don't have that. We're like Euro League. Until we have revenue sharing and a hard cap, we not going to be a fair league." In the NFL, every team has a chance because they only play 16 games and the playoffs are 1 game elimination! :rolleyes:

You lose 4 games to start the season in the NFL, you pretty much miss the playoffs! You lose 1 playoff game, kiss your season goodbye!

It has nothing to do with the system, and everything to do with "Any given Sunday", but the owners will spin that to the ignorant who are willing to listen.


Several executives fear that Hunter and union president Derek Fisher have been swayed by star players and their agents into taking a hard-line position that could be devastating to hundreds of rank-and-file players if the season were lost. “The thing that they’re fighting for right now is not the middle-of-the-road guy, and that's who you would think the union would be fighting for,” one of the executives said. “They’re fighting for the max guys right now or the max-to-be guys.”Derek Fisher isn't fighting for star players, he's fighting for EVERY player, because he knows that no one would pay to see the Lakers play for just Derek Fisher, just like nobody would pay to see the 90s Bulls play for just Steve Kerr.

Without star players, even the role players wouldn't be making the money they are making today. And that difference of salary is FAR more important to the small guys than the star players.

Besides, Star players have already proven they are willing to play below their market value if it means winning, but that was painted as a bad thing by the media.


Some small-market executives are fearful that the amnesty provision being negotiated will turn out to be only another advantage for big-market teams. The provision would allow teams to release an underperforming player and spread the money left on his contract over twice the years remaining, plus one, for cap purposes. One small-market GM envisions this provision being used by big-market teams to collect players cast off by small-market teams. "It's a great idea until Baron Davis goes to Miami," the GM said.Everyone wants to destroy the Heat so badly. Not even MJs bulls or Russell's Celtics could force the rest of the league to stop playing. This lockout proves that the Heat are the greatest team of all-time.

Wade>You
10-18-2011, 05:00 PM
As for the OP's question in the topic title, this is why the max is so important to a player:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html

Season Team Lg Salary
1985-86 Chicago Bulls NBA 630,000
1987-88 Chicago Bulls NBA 845,000
1988-89 Chicago Bulls NBA 2,000,000
1990-91 Chicago Bulls NBA 2,500,000
1991-92 Chicago Bulls NBA 3,250,000
1992-93 Chicago Bulls NBA 4,000,000
1993-94 Chicago Bulls NBA 4,000,000
1994-95 Chicago Bulls NBA 3,850,000
1995-96 Chicago Bulls NBA 3,850,000
1996-97 Chicago Bulls NBA 30,140,000
1997-98 Chicago Bulls NBA 33,140,000
2001-02 Washington Wizards NBA 1,000,000
2002-03 Washington Wizards NBA 1,030,000
Career (may be incomplete) 90 235 000

The greatest player in NBA history and the guy who did so much for this sport was low-balled throughout the majority of his career. The owners would have these guys playing for free if they could.

Kevj77
10-18-2011, 05:36 PM
Maybe because the max contracts drive up the average salary in the NBA, which is what the MLE that mid level players often get signed for is based on. Wouldn't this benefit the average players? I don't think the players are looking to give up on the current soft cap system just yet. Perhaps because they feel these players already add way more value to the NBA then they are currently paid.

Just guessing I really don't know.

daleja424
10-18-2011, 05:42 PM
Maybe because the max contracts drive up the average salary in the NBA, which is what the MLE that mid level players often get signed for is based on. Wouldn't this benefit the average players? I don't think the players are looking to give up on the current soft cap system just yet. Perhaps because they feel these players already add way more value to the NBA then they are currently paid.

Just guessing I really don't know.

NO. The MLE and average salary is a simply calculation (57%)(BRI)/(450 players). Does not matter how you slice up the 57%...the players were always guaranteed 57%...

...that is why the idea of "bad contracts" is a joke

Cal827
10-18-2011, 06:04 PM
As for the OP's question in the topic title, this is why the max is so important to a player:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html

Season Team Lg Salary
1985-86 Chicago Bulls NBA 630,000
1987-88 Chicago Bulls NBA 845,000
1988-89 Chicago Bulls NBA 2,000,000
1990-91 Chicago Bulls NBA 2,500,000
1991-92 Chicago Bulls NBA 3,250,000
1992-93 Chicago Bulls NBA 4,000,000
1993-94 Chicago Bulls NBA 4,000,000
1994-95 Chicago Bulls NBA 3,850,000
1995-96 Chicago Bulls NBA 3,850,000
1996-97 Chicago Bulls NBA 30,140,000
1997-98 Chicago Bulls NBA 33,140,000
2001-02 Washington Wizards NBA 1,000,000
2002-03 Washington Wizards NBA 1,030,000
Career (may be incomplete) 90 235 000

The greatest player in NBA history and the guy who did so much for this sport was low-balled throughout the majority of his career. The owners would have these guys playing for free if they could.

That part made me laugh :D. But it is ridiculous that a guy who generated billions over billions for the Association was only paid 25 or so million in his prime. (The Last years I think were his decision though; if he actually tried, he probably would have got a huge contract.

I'm sorry but what's wrong with some of the smaller markets complaining about the 1 year Amnesty clause. They complain about having big bad contracts that they can't rid themselves of, then are complaining about where the players go once they are released... What in the ******* is wrong with them? They can't have control what those released players do. They deserve to get paid (they didn't do anything wrong, they were OFFERED the contract), and if they are released from it, they have the right to go wherever they want for how much they want... since these Athletes are getting well paid and want to win, I can see a bunch of them signing on contenders (Dallas, Miami, OKC, Boston, etc) at a near minimum salary to have a go at it. How could you not expect it? Those teams would be good for the next few years because of this. The trade-off for the smaller market teams is that the field would evenutally level (Since many of these guys with the past bigger contracts are getting older and will eventually fade.

Baron Davis to Miami? Although it could happen, but why pick Miami as an example over a team like the Lakers (isn't he from UCLA)Why does something tell me that Gilbert is spewing crap to the Cav's GM? lol The Way Gilbert wants to control people... I would continue on, but I don't want to start a war and get banned lol. He Mad.

beasted86
10-18-2011, 06:13 PM
The max salary should remain sacred because stars like Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard, etc... are underpaid in relation to how much value they add to the team. The rest are actually overpaid in respect to what those guys make.

Hellcrooner
10-18-2011, 06:33 PM
nba is like the euro league????????????????????

mmm lets see..... nba champions since 1980

Lakers 10
Bulls 6
Spurs 4
Celtics 4
Pistons 3
Rockets 2
Sixers/Heat/Mavs 1

thats 9 teams winning the ring in 31 years with Lakers eating a third of the rings, Lakers+Bulls eating half of the rings and L.A,Chi,Bos,S.A teams eating 75% of the rings


Lets check euroleague since 1980 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroleague_Basketball

Number of different champions = 16

max amounts of "rings" in the period :
Panathinaikos with 6 and macabbi with 4 both added mean just 33% of the total.


so NO; NBA IS NOT THE EUROLEAGUE


go figure NO SALARY CAP, NO DRAFT, NO MAX CONTRACTS, NO **** but FREE MARKET and the competition has a BETTER level of fairness.

Tony_Starks
10-18-2011, 07:01 PM
Did one GM seriously say about the amnesty clause "it's a great deal until Baron Davis goes to Miami?" That is seriously so pathetic on so many levels. You're saying you don't want a player but still you don't want a good team to pick him up?

So basically an amnesty clause is ok as long as the only ones that can benefit from it are the small market teams.......

daleja424
10-18-2011, 07:03 PM
Did one GM seriously say about the amnesty clause "it's a great deal until Baron Davis goes to Miami?" That is seriously so pathetic on so many levels. So basically an amnesty clause is ok as long as the only ones that can benefit from it are the small market teams.......

yup...and that is why we are in a lockout.

I don't know why these owners think they are going to be able to prevent guys from taking less money to play in desirable spots...

Hellcrooner
10-18-2011, 07:33 PM
yup...and that is why we are in a lockout.

I don't know why these owners think they are going to be able to prevent guys from taking less money to play in desirable spots...

go back to the 60s when players drafted could NEVER leave the team, just be traded.

That ( alongside some revindicaitons bout Nba trying to molopolistically take out the aba) is what led to the first Labor confrontation between owners and players, that confrontation almost costed jerry west his career.


basically , Owners ( of small market teams) wont be happy until the nba goes back to the 16Th century and allows complete SLAVERY.

Dade County
10-18-2011, 09:16 PM
I'm sorry but what's wrong with some of the smaller markets complaining about the 1 year Amnesty clause. They complain about having big bad contracts that they can't rid themselves of, then are complaining about where the players go once they are released... What in the ******* is wrong with them? They can't have control what those released players do. They deserve to get paid (they didn't do anything wrong, they were OFFERED the contract), and if they are released from it, they have the right to go wherever they want for how much they want... since these Athletes are getting well paid and want to win,.

I think what the owners want, is like what the nfl has; when a player gets cut, the worst teams get first dibs on them, and if at that point no one wants the player services, then he is put into the open market.

Thats complete bull ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And Why the **** does every GM and every news paper writer picks out Miami:confused:

Cal827
10-19-2011, 01:05 AM
go back to the 60s when players drafted could NEVER leave the team, just be traded.

That ( alongside some revindicaitons bout Nba trying to molopolistically take out the aba) is what led to the first Labor confrontation between owners and players, that confrontation almost costed jerry west his career.


basically , Owners ( of small market teams) wont be happy until the nba goes back to the 16Th century and allows complete SLAVERY.

Ok so you are allowed to say it lol. On a side note, Didn't people from Lebron's group compare Gilbert to a slave owner or something like that?


I think what the owners want, is like what the nfl has; when a player gets cut, the worst teams get first dibs on them, and if at that point no one wants the player services, then he is put into the open market.

Thats complete bull ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And Why the **** does every GM and every news paper writer picks out Miami:confused:

I'd feel bad for you guys, but then I remember you guys have Lebron/Wade/Bosh :D... just kidding man, but it's got to suck.

The Heat are getting all this crap for signing the big 3, even what they did was completely legal. They had money under the cap, and decided to sign with them. People argue over whether or not there was collusion, but do half of you honestly believe that friends in the NBA don't talk about possibly playing together. Amare/Melo/Paul have discussed it; I also remember in 2005 (after the Clippers good year where they took Phoenix to G.7 in the Western conference semi-finals.) that Elton Brand was going to opt out of his contract in order to allow Baron Davis to sign with them, then Brand was going to use the Bird Rights (allowing a team to resign them even though they were over the cap). The only reason this failed was because the 76ers outbid the Clippers by and he decided to go there anyways... I also remember hearing on the news about whether or not Baron would change his mind on the deal after Brand signed lol.

If Gilbert was willing to spend on the appropriate talent, then the Cav fans might have won a title last year (2010). But no, they didn't want to part with Hickson in a potential Amar'e deal.

If Colangelo was able to get actual help here (Maybe resign Marion, rather than go for Hedon't) Bosh might have stayed. Hell if we didn't send Miami J O'neals huge expiring, we might have been the team with the cap space to acquire the 3... lol your welcome Miami :p... But I feel that he doesn't really hold a grudge anymore, as least not as much as Gilbert.

Let them sign wherever they want. It's not like they'll all go to Miami. Even if the guys sign with contenders for the next 2-5 years: eventually their bodies will wear down too. I mean if it'll become more even (which is what they are saying they want), I wouldn't mind a few more years of big market dominance before things start to even out and the league becomes more stable overall (you know assuming that the owner's aren't lying to us... I can't even get through that last sentence without laughing).