NBA lockout on the horizon?

[Dash]

The NBA owners are reportedly bracing for a lockout after the 2010-11 season.

 

Owners are looking to significantly lower salaries.

 

One executive spoke about Amare Stoudemire and that he wouldn’t even get a five-year contract worth $60 million under the next CBA.

 

One team owner said that it would be even worse for Stoudemire.

 

“The owners are really going to chop the money down,’’ the owner said. “I think Stoudemire would get $5 or $6 million [annually] in the next deal. The bottom line is that things are going to change dramatically.’’

 

A general manager, however, believes that the line of thinking from that owners was extreme.

 

“That [$5 million for Stoudemire] sounds a little bizarre, but player salaries are definitely going to take a hit,’’ the GM said. “Players that come up for contracts under the new CBA are going to find themselves getting a lot less money.’’

 

One GM told ESPN that the owners are looking to shorten the maximum length of a contract to four or five years. He added that they have actually discussed trying to guarantee only the first two years of a four-year deal, and that the third and fourth years would be guaranteed only if a player reached certain performance-based incentives the previous season.

 

“Those concepts are being discussed,’’ another GM told ESPN. “Is there a sentiment among some [owners] that they’d like to have it like football? Yeah. But I think that’s out of bounds.’’

 

Billy Hunter, who heads the players association, is unlikely to go willingly with these salary reductions.

 

“There’s going to be a lockout,’’ the owner said. “There’s not even a doubt in my mind about that. Billy’s not going to make a deal like that. Teams are already saving up money for a strike.’’

 

Link

 

Wow, thoughts? Do you think this could be another 2008 (or was it 2007?) lockout, something bigger or no lockout at all?

[Real Deal]

I'm sure there will be a lockout, but saying that salaries will decrease as much as 65-70% is insane. That won't happen, ever.

[Sky]

Timing couldn't be worse. Bad economy, lower tv money, falling attendance, owners in smaller cities or smaller arenas losing money. Lockout seems practically guaranteed.

 

The owners want shorter contracts with fewer years guaranteed, envious of the NFL flexibility. They want smaller contracts and more of the pie. They want to do away with the MLE, lower the cap and lower the tax threshold. Their entire agenda is about taking away what the players already have, which is a recipe for disaster.

 

About the only thing the owners will give that the players want is more free agent freedom, no more restricted free agency. But if the owners have their way then free agency is no longer a big payday. This is a war over money, so little give and take potential. Owners: "you have too much of our money give it back, and give up long term guaranteed contracts too." Players: "We'll scale back slightly for now in exchange for guaranteed increases in the BRI percentage as the economy recovers but that's it." Where's the room for compromise? There is none. This is about the owners taking their money back from the players. There Will Be Blood.

[Big Penny]

if their is a cap-less league, i will probably stop following the NBA

[Real Deal]

Timing couldn't be worse. Bad economy, lower tv money, falling attendance, owners in smaller cities or smaller arenas losing money. Lockout seems practically guaranteed.

 

The owners want shorter contracts with fewer years guaranteed, envious of the NFL flexibility. They want smaller contracts and more of the pie. They want to do away with the MLE, lower the cap and lower the tax threshold. Their entire agenda is about taking away what the players already have, which is a recipe for disaster.

 

About the only thing the owners will give that the players want is more free agent freedom, no more restricted free agency. But if the owners have their way then free agency is no longer a big payday. This is a war over money, so little give and take potential. Owners: "you have too much of our money give it back, and give up long term guaranteed contracts too." Players: "We'll scale back slightly for now in exchange for guaranteed increases in the BRI percentage as the economy recovers but that's it." Where's the room for compromise? There is none. This is about the owners taking their money back from the players. There Will Be Blood.

LOL, with the final statement you made, you can stick this entire post into a movie clip, as a voice-over, and it would work just fine.

 

People don't really understand that, once players get paid, pulling money from them is a big deal. There are plenty of them who are used to splurging, buying houses and vehicles, sticking basketball courts, swimming pools and private gyms on their land, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to charities, etc. Giving an all-star like Amare Stoudemire a huge, HUGE paycut would cause one hell of a mess I'm glad I don't have to be a part of.

[Sky]

No chance of that. The owners want a tighter cap not no cap. Only thing in the NFL they want to copy is shorter less guaranteed contracts.

[Real Deal]

if their is a cap-less league, i will probably stop following the NBA

That won't happen, at least not for the next 5-10 years.

 

EDIT: Sky beat me to it, haha.

[andreusito]

I hope salaries get lowered 30%-50%, they still make their money but at least it's not rediculous

[Erick Blasco]

 

 

Another Amnesty Provision

 

Back in 2005 the NBA instituted a one-time Amnesty Provision, also known as the Allan Houston Rule, that allowed teams to waive one player without being responsible for paying the luxury tax on that player's contract—although teams were still responsible for paying out the remainder of those contracts.

 

It would make an awful lot of sense for the NBA to bring back the provision. It would make even more sense for them to bring it back before the current CBA expires.

 

Players like Samuel Dalembert, Jared Jeffries, Peja Stojakovic, and Andrei Kirilenko would top the list of overpaid players who could save their current teams an awful lot of scratch given the chance to waive them without having to pay double their salaries with the luxury tax.

 

But even mid-level salaried players such as Luke Walton, James Posey, and Matt Carroll would ease the burden on teams if they were only required to pay out the contracts.

 

The NBPA wouldn't care because their guys would still get paid and those who are released could essentially double-dip when signing contracts with their next team.

 

The only opposition might come from those owners like Donald Sterling who are continuously under the luxury tax and enjoy collecting their share of the luxury tax money from the tax-paying teams.

 

 

 

Opt Out of Opt-Outs

 

This one is definitely a long-shot but it's time for the NBA to do away with player options. How often do player's exercise options where the outcome is positive for the team?

 

There are only a few instances I can think of.

 

Last summer Trevor Ariza exercised his option to stay with the Lakers, but that was mainly due to the fact that there were only a couple of teams with cap space and he had missed a lot of games due to a stress fracture in his foot that sidelined him for most of the second-half of the season and the first three rounds of the playoffs.

 

But most of the time player options are a Catch-22 for teams. Either the player exercises his option to stay because he knows he doesn't deserve the money he's due and he will never get a better offer somewhere else (Eddy Curry), or he'll opt out because he feels he deserves more years and more money and the team can't afford to let him walk away (Gilbert Arenas).

 

In one instance the teams is stuck with an overpaid stiff and in the other instance they find themselves outbidding themselves for the right to keep a player they've already invested time and money in and don't want to risk losing that player and watching him realize his potential elsewhere.

 

The way the league is currently constructed leaves very little margin for error. It's not often that a team decides to let a lottery pick leave after his rookie deal expires.

 

The bad teams end up extending their lottery picks every year and are left with nothing but their mid-level exception with which to improve their rosters.

 

Because they are bad teams, they have to overpay lower-tiered free agents like Jerome James, Jared Jeffries, Beno Udrih, and Jason Kapono in order to get anyone to sign with them.

 

So what teams are left with is two or three lottery picks making too much money for the next four or five years and a couple free agent stiffs who nobody will take in a trade until their contracts are in their final years.

 

Eliminating player options would at least give teams the power with which to better mold their rosters every year or two and provide incentive for players to earn their next contract instead of playing like they know their money is guaranteed.

 

Compare the NBA's current model with those of MLB and the NFL. Since baseball has no salary cap teams can spend money freely to improve. In football, a team like the defending NFC Champion Arizona Cardinals can turn their franchise around with a couple good drafts and a few notable free agents. It also doesn't hurt that contracts in the NFL are non-guaranteed.

 

In the NBA one bad contract can haunt you for half a decade.

 

Small Market vs. Big Market

 

One of the key issues that will be discussed throughout negotiations will be how the teams in the larger markets can help to subsidize the teams in smaller markets with more than just the luxury tax.

 

The NBA's dirty little secret is the unfair advantage given to big market teams when it comes to retaining free agents and paying the luxury tax.

 

While the licensing and network television money is dispersed evenly amongst all 30 teams, things like local TV and radio deals as well as ticket prices and luxury suite revenues go to the individual owners.

 

The Lakers have local TV and radio deals not just in California but also in Nevada and Hawaii, states without professional sports teams. Los Angeles is the nation's second largest television market and has 16 Fortune 500 companies based in or around it to buy up those expensive luxury suites. The average ticket price for a Lakers game last season was a league-leading $93.25.

 

Compare that with Memphis, the country's 38th largest TV market with only three Fortune 500 companies. The average cost of a ticket to a Grizzlies home game last season was $24.11.

 

A naming rights deal or the amount of money teams get for arena signage from sponsors will always be greater in larger markets than smaller ones. Perhaps it's time for a greater percentage of that money to be shared and factored into the Basketball Related Income (BRI) totals that determine the league's salary cap.

 

 

 

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/231404-is-another-nba-lockout-inevitable

 

More in a terrific article about a potential upcoming lockout and what could be done to prevent it.

 

 

 

[Redneck]

I think we will see another lock out. I also disagree with the above statement that it's a bad time to do it, I think it's perfect timing. The economic slump has shown us that this revinue is tenitive at best. Players need to understand this and understand that many owners just cannot afford to pay these prices.

 

I do think we'll see a compromised CBA after a lockout. I think guarenteed contracts will remain, but they will only be partially gaurenteed, and I think teams will be required to carry 14 or 15 players.

[The Artesticle]

Just a question, assuming the lockout occurs and a new CBA is reached, and the player's salary decline as much as the one owner is predicting, what happens to the salaries of players signed to contracts after the 2011 season? If there is a player with three more years left at MLE level money, will his contract be terminated because the new CBA is reached or is that money still on the books?

[Sky]

Existing contracts are unaffected. That's always been the case in the NBA, contracts are grandfathered in from past CBAs.

[Sħãlïq™]

Link

 

Wow, thoughts? Do you think this could be another 2008 (or was it 2007?) lockout, something bigger or no lockout at all?

Last time I checked the lockout shortened season that didn't start till February 5th was.. 1998–'99. Guess I be missin' smth herre...

Edited January 28, 2010 by Shaliq

[Redneck]

A couple years ago there was almost a lockout but they can to an 11th hour agreement, I think that is what he is refering to. I believe it was 2006. That was the year were free agency began in August instead of July and the summer leagues were really weird.