Simmons fix for players salaries

[sirkickyass]

I don't think it's any secret that a hard cap system would mean that the Miami's Big 3 would have to be broken up somehow... Basically one of them would have to leave the team.

Any why again would that be bad for the league?

Miami was a HUGE road draw this year. Strong road attendance is a positive for every team in the league, including small market teams.

Also, it's not a coincidence that the NBA Finals ratings were so good and Miami was involved. There is some merit to the idea that Miami as an idea was positive for the league's fortunes. The same is/was true for Boston the last three seasons.

Especially for a small market team like the Jazz?

It could potentially break up smaller market teams as well. I just went for an obvious one. Let's take the San Antonio Spurs.

Manu Ginobili: $12 million (All Star Slot)
Tim Duncan: $17 million (Franchise Player slot)
Tony Parker: $12 million (All Star Slot)

That's $41 million for three players. This is assuming that the Spurs did not exercise the right to pay $15 million each to Gino and Parker because they would have to do so to keep them (this is the functional equivalent of Bird rights for All-Star players in the Simmons system). If they did so then the number jumps to $47 million for three players. It is exceedingly difficult to believe destroying the Spurs' model is good for the league and small market teams.

Do we want to create a cap model that makes the Spurs impossible? Isn't that the growth model that should be encouraged? OKC could have the same problem in a couple years.

 

[The Midnight]

Oh, and one more thing. This Simmons' fix actually will put teams into situation when you DON'T WANT your players to be voted All Star or All NBA. What happens if your couple of players get voted All Star in their contract final year? Does it effectively mean that league voted for them to leave your team because it's unfeasible to stay under the cap and still re-sign your players.
Who knows how this may turn out - coaches benching their stars for no obvious reason? Players blaming coaches for not calling plays for them to deflate their All Star chances?
His fix is as flawed as the current system is.

Yeah it does mean you lose that player. But if you're full up to the Cap and can't sign that player - it probably means you already have enough good players on your team.

That's the whole point of having a hard cap - so that other teams can have a go at signing that player. So that just because you're based in LA or Miami - it doesn't mean that your team can just 'stockpile' good players.

 

[zbone]

It could potentially break up smaller market teams as well. I just went for an obvious one. Let's take the San Antonio Spurs.

Manu Ginobili: $12 million (All Star Slot)
Tim Duncan: $17 million (Franchise Player slot)
Tony Parker: $12 million (All Star Slot)

That's $41 million for three players. This is assuming that the Spurs did not exercise the right to pay $15 million each to Gino and Parker because they would have to do so to keep them (this is the functional equivalent of Bird rights for All-Star players in the Simmons system). If they did so then the number jumps to $47 million for three players. It is exceedingly difficult to believe destroying the Spurs' model is good for the league and small market teams.

Don't forget that $500k per year of long service bonus. That would top up SA trio's salary with $15-20mln more on top of $41mlln

 

[The Midnight]

Miami was a HUGE road draw this year. Strong road attendance is a positive for every team in the league, including small market teams.

Also, it's not a coincidence that the NBA Finals ratings were so good and Miami was involved. There is some merit to the idea that Miami as an idea was positive for the league's fortunes. The same is/was true for Boston the last three seasons.

I hear you - but that's not a sustainable business model for the league as a whole.

You have the Miami games. But currently you also have the Charlotte VS Detroit games. The Golden States VS Minnesota games. The Kings VS Bucks games. I'd rather see an NBA that virtually all teams can compete for the Championships, rather than where only 5 teams can compete.

Do we want to create a cap model that makes the Spurs impossible? Isn't that the growth model that should be encouraged? OKC could have the same problem in a couple years.

OK, but we want to create a cap model that makes Dallas, LA, Miami, Boston, etc, etc impossible also.

In that Spurs model - they'd have to decide whether Parker & Ginobili are really All Stars caliber players. They may decide that Ginobili is no longer an All Star player for them. In which case they may let him walk & try to train and/or draft other players instead.

I think it will make teams look at their roster much more carefully and not just throw money around - which to me is a good thing. It puts more pressure on training & drafting which are skills that I'd be more comfortable for teams to compete on.

So rather than Rich Teams winning - teams with good basketball minds/skills could end up winning for once - and I'd say Amen to that!

 

[zbone]

Jazz wouldn't be able to keep Stockton and Malone under Simmons' CBA. This is great... why?

 

[The Midnight]

Jazz wouldn't be able to keep Stockton and Malone under Simmons' CBA. This is great... why?

???

How do you get to that? Only $17m would hit the cap. The $500k extra doesn't count towards the cap under the proposed system.

So it'll be $34m all up hitting the cap for Stockton & Malone (both Franchise Players). That leaves another $18m to sign other players.

It could be argued you don't need a HUGE supporting cast to win if you already have 2 Super Stars.

 

[sirkickyass]

I hear you - but that's not a sustainable business model for the league as a whole.

I don't think the league is EVER going to get people to come out for every game. There will always be cherry-picking for prime teams and games. While it would be nice to have everyone equally excited about every game I suspect that is unrealistic in today's market.

It's obvious, btw, that the easiest revenue sharing solution is to split (at some ratio, maybe 70/30 or 60/40) home and road team revenues for every game rather than having the home team take the gate receipts in total (which I believe is the system the NYT described). Suddenly every team is financially rewarded even if they are in a weaker market for putting together a good team that draws fans in on the road. Everyone gets a piece of sweet big market revenues when they play there. Playoff games are great for everyone etc etc.

You have the Miami games. But currently you also have the Charlotte VS Detroit games. The Golden States VS Minnesota games. The Kings VS Bucks games. I'd rather see an NBA that virtually all teams can compete for the Championships, rather than where only 5 teams can compete.

To be fair here one of the teams you just mention DID win a championship recently. Three others have been conference finalists in the last 10 years. Charlotte is just horribly run and would continue to be so under any cap system. Ditto Golden State. We're really not as far away from competitive balance as everyone seems to believe in these conversations. I think you want to create a cap system that allows home-grown teams (like SA, OKC, and the old Jazz teams) to stay together. It is possible that creating teams on the fly is ok too if they are good for league revenues. Some minor fixes (such as eliminating the ability to trade bird rights) might go a long way here.

OK, but we want to create a cap model that makes Dallas, LA, Miami, Boston, etc, etc impossible also.

I don't know that this is true.

In that Spurs model - they'd have to decide whether Parker & Ginobili are really All Stars caliber players. They may decide that Ginobili is no longer an All Star player for them. In which case they may let him walk & try to train and/or draft other players instead.

I think it will make teams look at their roster much more carefully and not just throw money around - which to me is a good thing. It puts more pressure on training & drafting which are skills that I'd be more comfortable for teams to compete on.

Those are the exact ways that the Spurs were built, but they're still punished by the same model.

 

[Jeffrey32]

In thinking of the All Star status determining salary, I thought of Yao Ming. He is voted in as an All Star each year but never plays. If there is no fan voting this would not be an issue for Bill Simmons' salary solution. However there is benefit for fan voting in that it generates revenue. Maybe the fans only vote for 1 All Star for each conference. So only the highest vote-getter in each conference is an all-star starter. The other All Star position are chosen by the coaches. It is still possible that someone injured like Yao becomes one of the two players selected by fans, but I am certain that that would prove that Yao's reach and poularity worldwide more than covers his salary even if he doesn't play a single game. The viewing revenue, merchandising, etc. more than cover Yao's $18m per year in salary.

 

[The Midnight]

We're really not as far away from competitive balance as everyone seems to believe in these conversations. I think you want to create a cap system that allows home-grown teams (like SA, OKC, and the old Jazz teams) to stay together.

Those are the exact ways that the Spurs were built, but they're still punished by the same model.

Alright - let's agree to disagree.

Spurs to me is one of those teams that has 1 Superstar in Duncan who for whatever reasons has chosen to played his whole career with the Spurs. Similarly with Durant signing a long term contract with OKC.

But I don't think a team can bank on a player falling in love with a small market team and doing that. Case in point: Cavs, Nuggets, Jazz just to name a few over the past year alone.

You need a system where there is parity (hard cap) and an incentive for players to stay with the team that's drafted & developed them (Franchise Player).

Coming back to your Spurs example - I'm confident they'll do very very well under the proposed model. They have proven that they can constantly find players and develop them into All Stars. They may lose Ginobili under the model, but they'll be able to draft and develop many more.

If they can't keep them all? Well poorer teams with cap space will benefit. May be Charlotte's of this world will benefit and can compete for the Championships for once.

 

[Jeffrey32]

Something Simmons is missing, is maybe to make it a more bonused incentivized formula. Use the difference in the hard cap and the BRI to pay out bonuses for players on the team that received recognition. So, if Deron Williams would not have been eligible for a max deal yet as he didn't make 2 All Star games, he gets a bonus when he gets the All Star bids. Also for a player like Landry fields who exceeds all expectations and is on a minimum-rookie deal he gets a bonus for his Rookie Game selection. The % and max of the bonuses are determined by the profit-loss difference for the league.

In addition to making contract length 4 years max, I would also make them team-options. 2 years + 1 + 1 and if you are picked up for all four years you get a bonus (or a player option for the 5th year).