PDA

View Full Version : Can Somebody Tell Me Why We Had A Lock Out?



JasonJohnHorn
07-05-2012, 11:27 PM
Omar Asik, whose highest career scoring average is 3.1, just signed a contract where he will be making 15 million dollars in his final season. I realize he is a great rebounder, but he's not even a starter! Jeff Green's agent is reporting that Green, whose career scoring average has dropped the last couple seasons, and who just spent a season on the injured list, is signing a contract where he will make an average of 10 million a year. Gerald Wallace, who likely deserves every penny he's getting paid, also signed a huge contract, and his team, the Nets, also just took on a huge contract in Joe Johnson, signed D-Will to a max contract and are currently looking at trading for another player who will also have a max contract (Dwight Howard).

The owners just locked the players out for half a season because they were making too much money. Then the put in a provision in teh CBA where they are allowed to amnesty a player (that's right, pay a player to NOT play, and then take on a contract in that player's place).

The owners are doing everything in their power to operate in the red right now. They are making all the same mistakes and will drive the league into the red all over again. Contracts are getting way out of hand, and players that aren't even starting are being offered money that would take up a quarter of the salary cap.

WTF IS WRONG WITH THE OWNERS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHY WE EVEN HAD A LOCK OUT?!?!?!?!?! SMH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slug3
07-05-2012, 11:32 PM
Owners wanted a bigger cut of the money. That to me seems like that's all they really cared about now.

bholly
07-05-2012, 11:40 PM
Come on, man. Nobody ever thought the owners were going to stop paying as much as they could within the rules. Competition for players means that's always the way it's going to be. THAT'S why they had the lockout - to bring the rules in so that when owners pay the most they can within the rules it's still less.

Everyone says 'well Hibbert's getting the max, so nothing's changed'. Well, yes, it has changed - his max is now much less than it would've been under the last system. The lockout wasn't to stop owners giving him the max, it was to make the max less, and that's what it did.

Instead of the Nets being able to offer Teletovic the full MLE, trade for Dwight, and still use the BAE, like they could under the old system, the new system put a cap on that, reducing how much they could spend and the advantage they have from bottomless pockets.

Instead of Deron getting 6 years with 10.5% raises he's getting 5 with 7.5% raises, saving the Nets $14.65m over the first 5 years.

Instead of the cap being around $63m, it's going to be at $58m again, meaning teams under the cap can't offer as much.

The lockout is having exactly the effect it was supposed to have. That's why they had the lockout.

Chronz
07-05-2012, 11:45 PM
The owners got the Lakers to help fund the league, it makes these mistakes easier to live with, that and shorter contract lengths.

bholly
07-05-2012, 11:47 PM
And the biggest number of all - when you add it all up, the players will be getting between 49% and 51% of BRI, as opposed to 57% previously. Even if you still think guys are getting overpaid, the overall effect is total salaries are going to be somewhere between 10.5% and 14% lower than they were before. That's why we had a lockout. It wasn't about teaching the owners cap management, it was about reducing the costs of bad cap management.

xabial
07-05-2012, 11:50 PM
Shorter Contract Lengths From Six Years to Five, Replaced $30M Five Year MLE. (Used to Sign Shawn Marion, Ron Artest, Mike Miller..etc..) with a 3 Year $9M-$15M Mid Level. (Used To Sign Jason Terry..Jason Kidd etc...).

Players Used to Make 57% of the League Revenue under the Old CBA. Now its Reduced to 49-51% (Depending On League Profits).

Harsher Luxury Cap Penalties than the Old CBA.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All this is Not Enough For Owners Stupidity.... :pity:

jayjay33
07-05-2012, 11:53 PM
It's simple so small markets can over pay and get good players. Before the new CBA it was a level playing field, now, small markets can get player, if the numbers are the same players are going to choose based on city's (no contest). So now the small markets can get a leg up.

llemon
07-06-2012, 12:14 AM
Shorter Contract Lengths From Six Years to Five, Replaced $30M Five Year MLE. (Used to Sign Shawn Marion, Ron Artest, Mike Miller..etc..) with a 3 Year $9M-$15M Mid Level. (Used To Sign Jason Terry..Jason Kidd etc...).

Players Used to Make 57% of the League Revenue under the Old CBA. Now its Reduced to 49-51% (Depending On League Profits).

Harsher Luxury Cap Penalties than the Old CBA.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All this is Not Enough For Owners Stupidity.... :pity:

Just FYI. Shawn Marion was not signed with MLE

xabial
07-06-2012, 12:17 AM
Just FYI. Shawn Marion was not signed with MLE

What was it then? I'm pretty sre they used their full Mid Level Exception to Sign Him... Or was it a S&T? Oops. Lol My Point still Stands.

tredigs
07-06-2012, 12:18 AM
I'm just glad BHolly's smart and engaged in spreading a little sage advice around here.

Mr.B
07-06-2012, 12:18 AM
Omar Asik, whose highest career scoring average is 3.1, just signed a contract where he will be making 15 million dollars in his final season. I realize he is a great rebounder, but he's not even a starter! Jeff Green's agent is reporting that Green, whose career scoring average has dropped the last couple seasons, and who just spent a season on the injured list, is signing a contract where he will make an average of 10 million a year. Gerald Wallace, who likely deserves every penny he's getting paid, also signed a huge contract, and his team, the Nets, also just took on a huge contract in Joe Johnson, signed D-Will to a max contract and are currently looking at trading for another player who will also have a max contract (Dwight Howard).

The owners just locked the players out for half a season because they were making too much money. Then the put in a provision in teh CBA where they are allowed to amnesty a player (that's right, pay a player to NOT play, and then take on a contract in that player's place).

The owners are doing everything in their power to operate in the red right now. They are making all the same mistakes and will drive the league into the red all over again. Contracts are getting way out of hand, and players that aren't even starting are being offered money that would take up a quarter of the salary cap.

WTF IS WRONG WITH THE OWNERS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHY WE EVEN HAD A LOCK OUT?!?!?!?!?! SMH!!!!!!!!!!!!

You will see why once the new penalties start to kick in. Billionaire owners are arrogent and the dumb one's don't see the **** storm they are walking in to. When the penalties start to kick in to repeat offenders you will see these same owners gutting their teams and having fire sales to avoid paying more in luxury tax than they are on their entire payroll.

bholly
07-06-2012, 12:25 AM
I'm just glad BHolly's smart and engaged in spreading a little sage advice around here.

thanks, yo.

jimm120
07-06-2012, 12:40 AM
Its for the PENALTIES that will come in at the 2013 season I think.

Plus, to reduce contract length and money

Plus, it forces teams to choose sometimes because of the $74 million "curtain"...which creates flow of players

RaiderLakersA's
07-06-2012, 09:50 AM
The owners got the Lakers to help fund the league, it makes these mistakes easier to live with, that and shorter contract lengths.

This. Sad, but true.

JWO35
07-06-2012, 09:56 AM
Too bad they can only use the amnesty one time on a guy under the old CBA, I can guarantee you 2yrs from now the owners will be *****ing over these contracts they green lighted.

torocan
07-06-2012, 10:16 AM
Too bad they can only use the amnesty one time on a guy under the old CBA, I can guarantee you 2yrs from now the owners will be *****ing over these contracts they green lighted.

That's true in any sport with FA. There's always going to be "bad" contracts. Nothing in any CBA will change that.

The new CBA lowered the Max contracts. That's good in alot of ways... it also means that more players will get those "MAX" contracts.

Folks need to stop worrying about who gets a "MAX" contract... under the old rules, Asik probably would have gotten the same money, and the true Max players would have gotten any more.

Here's the reality. More players are getting MAX because the Max is LOWER. Alot of them are still getting what they're worth and some of the top players are getting underpaid.

What that means is that weaker teams actually have a shot to get a "superstar" now without going completely bankrupt.

Like it or not, the closer you get to parity, the better it is for the game.

No league can survive if 20/30 teams can barely fill their seats.

LA_Raiders
07-06-2012, 10:31 AM
It is all about the Big Teams supporting the small teams... If you have $ you win, nothing changed there... Its a Mafia...

ccugrad1
07-06-2012, 10:43 AM
I will say this: If I was an agent, even for the most mediocre FA known to man kind, Omer Asik's contract would be my starting point for ANY discussions. If a guy like that can get nearly 8 million a season on average, so can just about anyone in the NBA.

I also believe that the NBA could contract a good amount of teams and I really don't think anyone would miss them. Some of the teams in the NBA right now are THAT bad!

Vinylman
07-06-2012, 10:44 AM
You will see why once the new penalties start to kick in. Billionaire owners are arrogent and the dumb one's don't see the **** storm they are walking in to. When the penalties start to kick in to repeat offenders you will see these same owners gutting their teams and having fire sales to avoid paying more in luxury tax than they are on their entire payroll.

WRONG!

Look at the teams offering the stupid deals... none of them will be going over the LT Threshhold... the larger teams will STILL go over the LT Threshhold but just by less due to the tax...

The issue for the smaller market team is that the 85% floor kicks in soon so they have to spend the money... might as well go out and overpay for a MARKETABLE player and then fill in with scrubs...

The guys who are gonna get ****ed are the Vets who have to take alot less... the POTENTIAL players are the ones that will get overpaid

guys like asik, fields, lin making more than a jason terry on a per year basis is a joke

NYY 26 to 7
07-06-2012, 10:56 AM
The owners will be crying again soon enough. The contract being handed out are insane.

RaiderLakersA's
07-06-2012, 02:48 PM
The owners will be crying again soon enough. The contract being handed out are insane.

Yep, that's pretty much how I see it. They overpay, scapegoat players and their salaries, scream bloody murder about market inequalities, and then threaten work stoppage because of the dire economic straits which THEY created. The cycle never ends.

ink
07-06-2012, 02:52 PM
It's simple so small markets can over pay and get good players. Before the new CBA it was a level playing field, now, small markets can get player, if the numbers are the same players are going to choose based on city's (no contest). So now the small markets can get a leg up.

It was?? :eyebrow:

nightBULL
07-06-2012, 04:23 PM
I'm just guessing here, but I think Asik's contract is loaded on the last year of his contract because it makes him easier to deal if he doesn't become the player they're expecting him to be. If he ends up playing well, cool they can keep him for year 3, if he doesn't pan out you trade him. I can see alot of teams willing to deal for a guy with an expiring contract that will clear 15 million in cap space for them to play around with in free agency the following offseason.

I wouldn't be surprised if Chicago matches Houston's offer for this very reason. They'd have money to spend with Boozer, Noah, and Deng coming off the books around that time as well and they'd have Mirotic coming over from Europe making a rookie's salary to help fill the void they'll lose down low.

bholly
07-06-2012, 07:13 PM
I'm just guessing here, but I think Asik's contract is loaded on the last year of his contract because it makes him easier to deal if he doesn't become the player they're expecting him to be. If he ends up playing well, cool they can keep him for year 3, if he doesn't pan out you trade him. I can see alot of teams willing to deal for a guy with an expiring contract that will clear 15 million in cap space for them to play around with in free agency the following offseason.

I wouldn't be surprised if Chicago matches Houston's offer for this very reason. They'd have money to spend with Boozer, Noah, and Deng coming off the books around that time as well and they'd have Mirotic coming over from Europe making a rookie's salary to help fill the void they'll lose down low.

It's loaded in the last year because that's the way it has to be to offer him that amount of money under the Arenas rule. If Houston end up getting him, the contract ends up averaging out over the three years instead of taking the big leap (source:http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q44), so it isn't so they have him as a big expiring at all.