The two most daunting words in the realm of NBA collective bargaining negotiations -- hard cap -- are coming up with greater frequency than I’ve ever heard in my three decades covering #thisleague
I don't understand why a hard cap would affect the players. Don't they get a certain percentage of Basketball Related Income regardless? Everything else is just how the money is distributed among the players, rather than players vs owners - or am I missing something?
Owners know a hard cap is a nonstarter, but they gotta set the initial negotiations super high so that the "middle" they reach with the players is more favorable to them.
Mark, are we counting on you to figure out what’s happening with the Spurs? 1) their objective should be to develop playing time for younger players while losing games! 2) this is supposed to be the premier franchise in scouting and drafting, and with Sumanic & Primo's situations, they have nothing to show for two full years of lottery!!
Chasing it, Xavier. Samanic was obviously a rare miss. The Primo story ... one suspects more will emerge. Hard to imagine San Antonio, or any NBA team, just walking away from a player in the midst of a mental health struggle.
Drafting well -> developing well -> paying your own players should be treated differently than paying max dollars to other teams’ free agents. The former should be encouraged / incentivized and the latter discouraged, with a salary cap or otherwise. Big market teams have no advantage in the former pursuit.
I’m not sure hard cap is the answer. I think then you risk the other leagues across the globe becoming a bigger factor. Somebody will pay the star players if the NBA teams can’t. Go ask the PGA Tour about that.
Are there other ways? Maybe in addition to just redistributing cash from luxury tax teams to other teams, certain tax amounts are then converted to salary cap exceptions for teams under the cap? That might give a little extra edge to small market teams in free agency.
I find salary cap and CBA talk exhausting, but I am curious what sort of voting threshold do the owners have to cross to have "agreement"? 50%, 66%? 100%?
It IS exhausting. No one wants to go there ... writers included. The difference this time is that these were supposed to be the labor talks that went (relatively) smoothly. No longer. Great question on the agreement piece. I will try to get answers but don't forget there's a league office component there, too.
Fantastic. As they did with their machinations to bring in Durant, the Warriors once again (with Steve Ballmer and Joe Tsai for company this time) have given a virtual middle finger to the other 27 teams that had a complicated agreement on a salary structure. It should never have reached a point where the league is proposing a hard limit, but now it's owner vs owners. If the Warriors win this fight, league parity will be a fantasy.
OK from the guy who is not a hoop head, but I really enjoy the NBA.... When a Team spends a ton more money on payroll than the other teams, like the Warriors are, aren’t they now making less money then the teams with out the salary tax? Of course the Warriors are now worth seven billion dollars, so maybe that is the answer? Or is it just a “want to win” at all costs?
I have to assume that ticket prices are higher, plus that doesn't account for much higher local network deals... The warriors, lakers, etc... Can afford to expend more cause they make much more.
The Warriors and the Lakers indeed have revenue streams that other teams don't and thus the ability (Golden State especially) to cope with luxury tax payouts. That $7 billion valuation is a hopeful number for fans, though, because it reflects how well things are going overall for the league financially ... and why both sides have to be smart enough to see that an actual labor stoppage for even a day would be lunacy.
I've always viewed NBA salary negotiations as being billionaire owners arguing that millionaire players make too much money. That said, my political progressive politics also sneak in a little bit. The Warriors are worth 7 billion! Damn, that sure creates an income disparity in the league. Then I laugh at my hypocritical self for siding with the owners who are lesser billionaires than some others.
No matter how much money they bring in, team owners will always pursue as much as cost control as they can. Which is why I openly scoff every time someone brings up a North American major sports league adopting promotion/relegation. Ain't gonna happen, not even in the sport synonymous with pro/rel worldwide, because MLS owners and NBA owners won't risk hundreds of millions or billions to buy franchises that could be bumped out of the league they paid to get in.
Surely someone whispered to Lacob that relief is coming for teams that give mega contracts to their own drafted players? And fix the dang NBA App with that moolah!
And what is the reason for a "hard cap?" It's not like anyone is suffering. It's just the governors wanting to keep the money. Money that they didn't earn.
It's not going to happen, but it's a shame the players can't find a way to have ownership equity in the teams.
I don't understand why a hard cap would affect the players. Don't they get a certain percentage of Basketball Related Income regardless? Everything else is just how the money is distributed among the players, rather than players vs owners - or am I missing something?
Owners know a hard cap is a nonstarter, but they gotta set the initial negotiations super high so that the "middle" they reach with the players is more favorable to them.
Mark, are we counting on you to figure out what’s happening with the Spurs? 1) their objective should be to develop playing time for younger players while losing games! 2) this is supposed to be the premier franchise in scouting and drafting, and with Sumanic & Primo's situations, they have nothing to show for two full years of lottery!!
Chasing it, Xavier. Samanic was obviously a rare miss. The Primo story ... one suspects more will emerge. Hard to imagine San Antonio, or any NBA team, just walking away from a player in the midst of a mental health struggle.
Drafting well -> developing well -> paying your own players should be treated differently than paying max dollars to other teams’ free agents. The former should be encouraged / incentivized and the latter discouraged, with a salary cap or otherwise. Big market teams have no advantage in the former pursuit.
I think the NBA majority agrees with this.
Most of it, anyway.
I’m not sure hard cap is the answer. I think then you risk the other leagues across the globe becoming a bigger factor. Somebody will pay the star players if the NBA teams can’t. Go ask the PGA Tour about that.
Are there other ways? Maybe in addition to just redistributing cash from luxury tax teams to other teams, certain tax amounts are then converted to salary cap exceptions for teams under the cap? That might give a little extra edge to small market teams in free agency.
I don't expect the hard cap push to succeed. But it's the loudest push we've seen for one yet.
I find salary cap and CBA talk exhausting, but I am curious what sort of voting threshold do the owners have to cross to have "agreement"? 50%, 66%? 100%?
It IS exhausting. No one wants to go there ... writers included. The difference this time is that these were supposed to be the labor talks that went (relatively) smoothly. No longer. Great question on the agreement piece. I will try to get answers but don't forget there's a league office component there, too.
Fantastic. As they did with their machinations to bring in Durant, the Warriors once again (with Steve Ballmer and Joe Tsai for company this time) have given a virtual middle finger to the other 27 teams that had a complicated agreement on a salary structure. It should never have reached a point where the league is proposing a hard limit, but now it's owner vs owners. If the Warriors win this fight, league parity will be a fantasy.
I think, in truth, it's owners vs. owners in every labor negotiation at some level. Hard to see 30 owners ever achieving unanimity on money matters.
OK from the guy who is not a hoop head, but I really enjoy the NBA.... When a Team spends a ton more money on payroll than the other teams, like the Warriors are, aren’t they now making less money then the teams with out the salary tax? Of course the Warriors are now worth seven billion dollars, so maybe that is the answer? Or is it just a “want to win” at all costs?
I have to assume that ticket prices are higher, plus that doesn't account for much higher local network deals... The warriors, lakers, etc... Can afford to expend more cause they make much more.
The Warriors and the Lakers indeed have revenue streams that other teams don't and thus the ability (Golden State especially) to cope with luxury tax payouts. That $7 billion valuation is a hopeful number for fans, though, because it reflects how well things are going overall for the league financially ... and why both sides have to be smart enough to see that an actual labor stoppage for even a day would be lunacy.
I've always viewed NBA salary negotiations as being billionaire owners arguing that millionaire players make too much money. That said, my political progressive politics also sneak in a little bit. The Warriors are worth 7 billion! Damn, that sure creates an income disparity in the league. Then I laugh at my hypocritical self for siding with the owners who are lesser billionaires than some others.
No matter how much money they bring in, team owners will always pursue as much as cost control as they can. Which is why I openly scoff every time someone brings up a North American major sports league adopting promotion/relegation. Ain't gonna happen, not even in the sport synonymous with pro/rel worldwide, because MLS owners and NBA owners won't risk hundreds of millions or billions to buy franchises that could be bumped out of the league they paid to get in.
Surely someone whispered to Lacob that relief is coming for teams that give mega contracts to their own drafted players? And fix the dang NBA App with that moolah!
Is this REALLY Clarence Beeks Jr.?
And what is the reason for a "hard cap?" It's not like anyone is suffering. It's just the governors wanting to keep the money. Money that they didn't earn.
It's not going to happen, but it's a shame the players can't find a way to have ownership equity in the teams.
The league believes it will spread talent more equitably across the league. That's the position they're trying to establish.
Wouldn't getting rid of the max contract spread talent across the league more effectively?