Lockout!!!

[GVC]

I see what you are saying it it may be true to a point but teams are going to have to look at what they can do as well. Say there is a 60 million on a hard cap and you look at what the three bigs are going to make. The big three is going to make close to 65 million alone in 2015 and that leaves no room for any other player. Players might give up some of their money but they are not going to give up a lot of it. Not sure if I just read this right or not on the net but it looks like lebron is making more this year then he was last year with the cavs. I don't see how lebron, Bosh, or wade took a pay cut from what i look at what their salaries are. They all are going to make more then 20 million in 2014-16 and that is not less. If i had to bet is that all three of those players are making more now then they did last year. If you had a cap one of those players if not all would not give up that money to play with each other. Depends on what the max salary is as well.

LeBron and Bosh took less money than their previous teams (and others) were offering.

The current soft cap, more than anything else, helps teams keep their own players. Yes, a few teams go over the LT line every year (although very few by very little), but for the most part the current setup helps teams keep their players and add solid roll players (with the MLE, LLE, etc.). A hard cap wouldn't solve that problem, and teams like the Jazz would have to jettison their players (since they've been over the cap AND LT in recent years) just like the big spenders.

 

[GVC]

Also, a hard cap in the NBA would likely cause more player movement than it does in the NHL and NFL. NHL teams carry 20/21 players on their roster AND have a true minor league system to develop and draw players from. NFL teams carry 53 players. When teams in these two leagues find themselves up against the cap, they have a lot of flexibility to move/cut players without reshaping their rosters entirely. Even with the NBA's soft cap, teams seem to be forced to make more drastic roster changes from year to year than their NFL and NHL counterparts, largely because NBA teams only carry 13-15 players total (including DLeague players) and generally count on only 8-10 to carry the team. A hard cap would make the NBA trade market and free agency an absolute cluster ****.

 

[margodydek]

I want to agree with you but I think MLB players are probably in a better situation.

Average NBA salary: $5.3MM
Average MLB salary: $3.3MM

I know people will harp on the NBA salary being at $5.3 and they'll say that the median is closer to $2MM per player, but it doesn't really matter because regardless of who has what contract, the players get 57% of revenue.

It's pretty simple as to why NBA players are above the rest. There are fewer of them, thus there's more to go around. Which on the flipside probably means that becoming an NBA player is harder than the rest.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Looks like the owners are caving first. Considering about 20% of the player base will be making money in Europe by the end of the year, while 100% of the owners will be losing boatloads of money, I''m not surprised. They have authorized Stern to negotiate alternatives to the hard cap.

https://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32015/ready-to-negotiate-that-hard-cap-david-stern

 

[margodydek]

Looks like the owners are caving first. Considering about 20% of the player base will be making money in Europe by the end of the year, while 100% of the owners will be losing boatloads of money, I''m not surprised. They have authorized Stern to negotiate alternatives to the hard cap.

https://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32015/ready-to-negotiate-that-hard-cap-david-stern

Economically I don't think the players have any leverage on the owners. The only reason the owners would be compelled to give in is the fear of the backlash from media/fans from missing games.

 

[shadler]

LeBron and Bosh took less money than their previous teams (and others) were offering.

The current soft cap, more than anything else, helps teams keep their own players. Yes, a few teams go over the LT line every year (although very few by very little), but for the most part the current setup helps teams keep their players and add solid roll players (with the MLE, LLE, etc.). A hard cap wouldn't solve that problem, and teams like the Jazz would have to jettison their players (since they've been over the cap AND LT in recent years) just like the big spenders.

With a hard cap every team would have to jettison their players and the jazz can't afford to go over the cap every year anyway. Players value will go down as well because teams can not pay for them. With the way it is setup now I don't see teams keeping their players. I been seeing way too much of players bolting for the bigger markets. I think the way it is has hurt the Jazz more then anything because teams with more money can out pay what the jazz can. Our starter now is Cj miles instead of wes mathews and that doesn't help because we couldn't pay that extra money. With a hard cap it gives the Gms more options on what they want to do. Most of those teams that are over the LT are the ones that are winning titles in the bigger markets. I just don't see how it has been helping the Jazz at all. We had to trade away our best player and start over.

 

[GVC]

The only reason the owners would be compelled to give in is the fear of the backlash from media/fans from missing games.

Bull ****. If the players are really willing to go 50/50 on revenue (which has been reported as a possibility), then the owners have a **** ton to lose, as their teams' values would plummet if the season is lost, especially if you think it's a real possibility that the NHL would swoop in and take a bunch of the available TV money (which I think is almost certainly the case). As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, in spite of the reported economic losses the NBA has experienced in the last few years, most (all?) NBA owners have done quite well over the long haul.

I'd love to see a 6 year CBA with a 50/50 revenue split, max contract lengths shortened by a year, the LT to cap ratio lowered, salary roll-backs to account for the reduction in the cap/LT and a return to 18-year-old draft eligibility. I can't see why the owners would turn that CBA down, even with the soft cap in place.

 

[GVC]

the jazz can't afford to go over the cap every year anyway

The Jazz have been over the cap since the 04/05 season (I think...certainly since the 05/06 season). That's the case with all but a few NBA teams every season. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't understand how the NBA's soft cap works.

 

[GVC]

Our starter now is Cj miles instead of wes mathews and that doesn't help because we couldn't pay that extra money.

The Jazz re-signed Memo two years ago, went out and got Al Jefferson last year, and then signed Raja Bell. The Jazz could easily have kept Matthews if they valued him as much as the Blazers did. The Jazz had the 5th highest payroll last season, after the Lakers, the Magic, The Mavs and the Celtics.

 

[margodydek]

Bull ****. If the players are really willing to go 50/50 on revenue (which has been reported as a possibility), then the owners have a **** ton to lose, as their teams' values would plummet if the season is lost, especially if you think it's a real possibility that the NHL would swoop in and take a bunch of the available TV money (which I think is almost certainly the case). As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, in spite of the reported economic losses the NBA has experienced in the last few years, most (all?) NBA owners have done quite well over the long haul.

Maybe I didn't say it right. My point was that players playing overseas does not give them leverage over the owners by saying, "see we don't need you, we can still make money without you". If I were an owner I wouldn't be scared of players signing contracts over seas. What I would be scared of is exactly what you said, and what I called backlash. I'm not sure they understand just how pissed people/fans will be and they would definitely run the risk of losing goodwill, which is worth a lot, from the public.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Maybe I didn't say it right. My point was that players playing overseas does not give them leverage over the owners by saying, "see we don't need you, we can still make money without you". If I were an owner I wouldn't be scared of players signing contracts over seas. What I would be scared of is exactly what you said, and what I called backlash. I'm not sure they understand just how pissed people/fans will be and they would definitely run the risk of losing goodwill, which is worth a lot, from the public.

The backlash factor is very real, but they were also counting on the fact many players burn through most of their money and save little for a rainy day. Take a player like JR Smith for example, dumb as a door nob and probably has less than a million in his bank account. Without Europe he would have two choices, liquidate assets to pay his bills, or give in to the owner's demands. He can now check option C: none of the above.

 

[GVC]

Maybe I didn't say it right. My point was that players playing overseas does not give them leverage over the owners by saying, "see we don't need you, we can still make money without you". If I were an owner I wouldn't be scared of players signing contracts over seas. What I would be scared of is exactly what you said, and what I called backlash. I'm not sure they understand just how pissed people/fans will be and they would definitely run the risk of losing goodwill, which is worth a lot, from the public.

Fair enough. I don't disagree.