Positive tweets on the lockout Oct 27th

[InGameStrategy]

I've learned to not get too excited. I've been going about my business assuming these parties haven't figured out that ****ting where you eat is not a good idea hoping I'd be wrong.

Anyway, I hope everyone realizes it's in the best interest of everyone to implement revenue sharing and a sliding scale for BRI. I don't know why that couldn't fix everything at this juncture.

By "sliding scale", do you mean a reduction of BRI every year from--say, 53%--down to another number (say, 50%)? It seems that that could get a deal done--especially given that these players care about the short term more than the long term (given that they are more likely to be playing in the long term.

For example, starting at 54%, with a 1% annual drop from there to 50% in the 5th year (and 50% thereafter) averages to 51%, helps the owners wind down their existing bloated contracts gradually, gives the players more than the 53% they wanted (in the first year), sets the owners up for a good bargaining in the next CBA (when most of the current players--if not the entire economy--will be long gone), and averages the players' share of BRI to 51% over 10 years.

Starting at 53% (with 1% annual drops until the 4th year) averages the BRI to 50.6% over 10 years. And the players can brag to their posse's that they get a majority of the basketball-related income <<sigh>>.

Or are you referring to expanding the sliding scale in place for rookies?
https://www.ehow.com/how_2095944_know-nba-salary-cap-rules.html

Or are you referring to the players' proposal to take more of a hit in down years?
https://www.denverstiffs.com/2011/6/9/2214121/collective-bargaining-part-2-of-3-the-players

 

[billyshelby]

The sliding scale has already been floated by the NBAPA. If the league is profitable by such and such a margin, the players get a higher percentage. If it isn't, they get a lower percentage. It's a players' proposal that has been rejected (last one I heard was 50 to 53.)

 

[InGameStrategy]

The sliding scale has already been floated by the NBAPA. If the league is profitable by such and such a margin, the players get a higher percentage. If it isn't, they get a lower percentage. It's a players' proposal that has been rejected (last one I heard was 50 to 53.)

Geesh, owners. While I've been backing 'em most of the time, I would think that they'd want to consider offering something like a 50 to 52 sliding scale, depending on where the cutoffs fall.

Then again, there are a few radical parched-earth owners who want to cut off their revenue noses despite their faces.

With November cancelled, players lose a hundred million or two, rendering at least part of any boost from 50/50 merely a compensation for lost income. Meanwhile, owners might dig in further to 50-50 for the same reason, after seemingly being willing to soften their stances on the cap and other items.

 

[billyshelby]

Geesh, owners. While I've been backing 'em most of the time, I would think that they'd want to consider offering something like a 50 to 52 sliding scale, depending on where the cutoffs fall.

With November cancelled, players lose tens of millions more, rendering any boost from 50/50 merely a compensation for lost income. Meanwhile, owners might dig in further to 50-50 for the same reason, after seemingly being willing to soften their stances on the cap and other items.

Owners are looking to get heavy over the next deal. To their mind, they caved on the last two deals. They've eaten the downturn in the economy. They know (better than most) the economy isn't healed by any stretch.

Players need to accept this state of affairs as a 'correction' of sorts. At the next negotiation, they can dig in about all the profits if the economy rebounds. For now, they need to take the money they can make rather than falling on the sword of principle.

 

[NUMBERICA]

A sliding scale incentivizes the overall health of the league and the game to players. Which in my opinion is something lacking from the labor. It's the same idea behind paying employees based on revenue percentage in the first place. A greater stake in the product matters.

Marginalization of guaranteed contracts does kind of the same thing, but the players won't give those up. I'd be all about doing both.

And if anyone wasn't already clear, in all of the lauding of the NHL's system, the sliding scale is used in it and the players earn 57% currently.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Late to the party here, so if this has already been discussed .. ignore me.

Sliding scale - I like it concept, but isn't akin to the struggles associated with defining profitability? Meaning, if there's a sliding scale based on the profitability of the franchise, doesn't it make the players too involved in the day-to-day management of the business ... questioning every employees necessity, the coach's salary, etc?

Maybe I have the complete wrong idea, but if this is tied directly to profitability, it won't work long term.

 

[carolinajazz]

....here's the owners new sliding scale: you sign NOW at 50/50.....or for each month you refuse to sign the scale slides 51/49 owners.....then it slides 52/48 owners.....then it slides 53/47 owners....etc. etc. etc.

 

[InGameStrategy]

A sliding scale incentivizes the overall health of the league and the game to players. Which in my opinion is something lacking from the labor. It's the same idea behind paying employees based on revenue percentage in the first place. A greater stake in the product matters.

But with a BRI, they already have a stake. More total revenue means more player revenue. While it might look good to increase the player BRI at profitable level, it doesn't necessarily instantly incentivize players to do well. If you want to incentivize players, put team-level metrics in their contracts. I don't see players going out of their way already to boost the NBA brand just so the NBA-level revenue goes up -> player revenue goes up -> an individual player might, just might, be able to negotiate a bit higher salary sometime. To remote a chain of events.

And if anyone wasn't already clear, in all of the lauding of the NHL's system, the sliding scale is used in it and the players earn 57% currently.

Yeah, and the average salary in the NHL is WAYYY lower than in the NBA, as are values of teams.
https://www.forbes.com/2006/11/09/nhl-teams-owners-biz_06nhl_cz_mo_kb_1109nhlintro.html

To me, a sliding scale is fine, but an NBA player share in the low 50s is plenty "fair," given where the average (and minimum) salaries are. Players and owners alike are shooting themselves in the foot for not getting this done.

 

[freakazoid]

Stupid jinx thread.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Yeah, and the average salary in the NHL is WAYYY lower than in the NBA, as are values of teams.
https://www.forbes.com/2006/11/09/nhl-teams-owners-biz_06nhl_cz_mo_kb_1109nhlintro.html

And this strengthens ownerships' arguments (help us in our poverty) more how exactly?

 

[InGameStrategy]

And this strengthens ownerships' arguments (help us in our poverty) more how exactly?

Um, NBA players are better paid on average than players in pretty much any other major team sport, even at 50/50 or 47/53. Or 53/47.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major...United_States_and_Canada#High_player_salaries
If I were the NBA/owners, I'd start pointing this out publicly. And repeatedly.

And, um, that average salary (including the salary lost with each passing day and week and month and season) matters more than percent share, especially over one or two percentage point and especially in sports where the players get paid more anyway. #OpportunityCost

In other words, when NBA players are still gonna get paid FAR more (on average) than MLB, NFL, or NHL players at 50-50 (and more than NFL players, I believe), then their BRI claim really doesn't hold water (or in the case of hockey, ice).

I guess that the players' whiny comeback could be that height is a rarer commodity than ice skating (or checking), but the NBA has shown that better basketball is probably played without maxing out the height average anyway. And the risk of injury is far lower in the NBA than in the NFL or the NHL (especially orthodontically).

And the NBA player's risk of getting his uniform dirty is far lower than in the MLB :|.

Therefore, the NBA players are punks who are negotiating against themselves, and dragging down the owners and fans with them.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

But with a BRI, they already have a stake. More total revenue means more player revenue. While it might look good to increase the player BRI at profitable level, it doesn't necessarily instantly incentivize players to do well. If you want to incentivize players, put team-level metrics in their contracts. I don't see players going out of their way already to boost the NBA brand just so the NBA-level revenue goes up -> player revenue goes up -> an individual player might, just might, be able to negotiate a bit higher salary sometime. To remote a chain of events.

Yeah, and the average salary in the NHL is WAYYY lower than in the NBA, as are values of teams.
https://www.forbes.com/2006/11/09/nhl-teams-owners-biz_06nhl_cz_mo_kb_1109nhlintro.html

To me, a sliding scale is fine, but an NBA player share in the low 50s is plenty "fair," given where the average (and minimum) salaries are. Players and owners alike are shooting themselves in the foot for not getting this done.

The average NHL roster is around 27-30 players I believe. Meaning their are nearly 3x as many players to pay on an average team, so of course their salaries are going to be lower.