-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NBA, NBA players' union reach tentative agreement on new 7-year CBA
- Thread starter XiaNaphryz
- Start date
- Status
WascallyWabbit
Member
Praise the lord, the off-season is long enough without a lockout
UnObtainium17
Member
Damn i wish i was born to grow 6'8".
great news especially for the players That average salary jump is crazy.
great news especially for the players That average salary jump is crazy.
Frozenprince
Banned
So basically a wash is what it reads like, don't see either side getting a clear W out of this.
that is how it should go it's called a win-win
unknownstranger
Member
I still think resting players will be a thing even with a slightly more stretched out schedule. It won't be quite as common, but it'll still exist.
StickSoldier
Member
Great, at least we avoid another lockout.
Considering ESPN has been losing significant numbers of viewers lately, I think it's a win for the players on timing alone. If/when the tv money dries up owners won't be looking to increase player salary.
This is great news. More roster spots, with four or so reserved for developmental prospects is absolutely fantastic. This is a boon to the NBDL. And giving smaller-market teams that extra juice to keep their stars is wonderful. The NBA is by far the most best/most exciting of the big four right now and I see that continuing on for a good while. The league is in a good place.
Steph is up for a HUGE pay rise.
The two roster spots is the biggest news. I think it's going to have a big effect on rosters throughout the league. For example that's two more players on minimums that want to play for a ring that warriors could potentially pull from other teams.
The two roster spots is the biggest news. I think it's going to have a big effect on rosters throughout the league. For example that's two more players on minimums that want to play for a ring that warriors could potentially pull from other teams.
True Savior
Member
The nba should create an hardcap (no more bullshit exceptions and luxury taxes) but eliminate salary caps. I think it would be a wonderful experience. How much good players would willingly to cut their salary to be in competitive teams? It could be phenomenal for parity. Instead of being forced through rules everyone circumvent, it would be more organic.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
You want a hard cap but no salary cap...? It doesn't make sense.
True Savior
Member
Hard cap on teams total salary expenditure. No cap on individual salaries (the 25%).
So a superstar can get gobs of money and then the rest of the roster will be filled in by cheap vets?
Sounds like you want some god awful basketball to be put out to watch. No thanks.
How would you feel if your boss told you "hey, all your coworkers are going to be useless shitheads and you are going to be working twice as hard, or you can take a 40% pay cut and and we will get you good coworkers?"
Ninja Scooter
Member
I think he means a team salary hard cap but no cap on player salaries, which I agree with. If a team wants to give LeBron 80% of their cap to try and lure him over let them. LeBron should be free to make as much as he wants, not be limited by these set contract slots that limit him to make as much as vastly inferior players.
It really is fucking ridiculous, only NA sport that has this shit.
Ditto. If there was no cap on player salaries the stars would get a contract in line with their true worth. IMO, the NBA teams spends way to much on mid tier or over the hill players. Case and point Chandler Parsons and Joakim Noah.
alexthekid
Member
Im not sure about how NBA works but the NHL also have a per player cap.
Goro Majima
Kitty Genovese Member
Removing the individual cap would probably be good for the game. You might have a much tougher time building these "super teams".
It's crazy how much more effective the union is in the NBA though. Fully guaranteed contracts and more bargaining power in general due to star power and smaller teams. You can tank the whole league by removing 3-5 specific players across the best teams but you can't do the same thing in the NFL.
It's crazy how much more effective the union is in the NBA though. Fully guaranteed contracts and more bargaining power in general due to star power and smaller teams. You can tank the whole league by removing 3-5 specific players across the best teams but you can't do the same thing in the NFL.
NFL union is shit in comparison to NBA. I don't know if it's because there are so many less players per team or what, but the players are taken care of.
Just imagine if either union was as powerful as the baseball union, though...
Yeah, it's the number of players, the fact that they are completely expendable with an average 3.3 year career length, play with helmets, and have very little star power relative to other leagues (QBs excepted to some degree).
All of that (and more) amounts to very little bargaining power.
The Wraith
Member
Wow, I never knew that and I'm a big hockey fan, well I'm a huge Rangers fan. The mechanics and workings of the league are something I don't follow as much, but I'm there for every Rangers game.
Vladimir Putin
Banned
Is there anything in there that prevents, or at least makes it a lot harder, to form these super teams?
DerangedHermit
Member
The best thing about this is the salary increases in d-league. Maybe one day it will be an alternative to the the scam that is the NCAA
(LOLOLOLOLOLOL, no it won't 
)
)Hyperactivity
Banned
God no, do you think the players union is stupid??
You're asking for a lockout to happen, the way the NBA currently is benefits the average NBA player and was designed to do so
What's stopping LeBron from taking the minimum to get better players on his team after all the cash he has (most of his money is endorsements, shoe deals, not the salary)? Because when you're in an organized industry, you never undercut, as it hurts everyone involved
WascallyWabbit
Member
Maybe for parity, but no way the players union would be down for that, be like willingly taking a pay cut to make sure the superstars get more money.
Hyperactivity
Banned
Teams can designate a veteran to offer a 5, possibly 6 year extension to.
Season starts earlier and games are more spaced out, which means less stress for 1 star type teams.
It's not just the differences between the two games, I don't even know how the NFL player union seems to be so terrible at its job
True Savior
Member
If a team builds that roster, it's going to lose. If that is the road that a superstar/team wants, let them do it. But teams want to be relevant. Not have a superstar and be a lottery franchise.
Absolutely
One of the points would exactly be how much harder it would be to build that sort of superteam.
The market would adjust accordingly. Maybe some migration from low-level american players who could get a fatter paycheck in europe/china.
If superstars didn't get pay cuts, they would have terrible teams. Teams would be more leveled, and money would be distributed accordingly.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Thing is, it's not only about how much Lebron makes, or else you screw over the hundreds of other players in the league. Additionally, no team would devote a majority of its resources to just one player because one player doesn't win you a championship. Furthermore, "limit him to make as much as vastly inferior players"? This would be implying that salary is an indicator of skill, which is laughable considering how GMs overspend just to attract people. Doesn't mean that they're in the same tier as LBJ.
It's worth noting that the superteam trend is mainly because of stars aligning moments (no pun intended). GSW was able to get Durant because they had the flexibility through the NBA TV contract and because Curry and Thompson's deals ended up being great for them. Miami was in at the right time to start adding Bosh and James considering they had 48mil in cap space when 2010 FA began.
Are the teams not making an incredible amount of money right now? Why would you try to make the players accept pay cuts? They'd walk out, and rightfully so.
Ninja Scooter
Member
This is the case BECAUSE of the cap on player salaries. Paul George is not as good as LeBron James, but he can ask for as much because he is Indy's franchise guy and they have to pay him that set price. I think that is stupid. Let the teams decide how much they want to pay guys.
But the true superstars make bank from endorsement deals that the 2nd tier guys don't have access too. James and Curry aren't complaining.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I'm not sure how that matters? I'm not saying guys like Paul George shouldn't make bank. I'm saying guys that are even better, guys like LeBron and Durant, should be free to have the option to make even more, because that is what they are actually worth. If LeBron wants to go to a garbage team that will pay him $50 million a year, or stay with a contender and make $30 million, I don't see why he shouldn't have that choice.
nephilimdj
Member
Bit sad about players having control over likeness in games, its Shawn Kemp on a bigger scale. All the classic players will now vanish over money greed
edit: Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp were not in NBA Jam Wii due to $$$
edit: Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp were not in NBA Jam Wii due to $$$
Superstars make so much from endorsement deals that salary doesn't matter much financially.
I think limiting bidding wars is good for the game as well.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Salary always matters.
Gordon0Freeman
Member
The best thing about this is the salary increases in d-league. Maybe one day it will be an alternative to the the scam that is the NCAA(LOLOLOLOLOLOL, no it won't
This would be absolutely amazing. Doubtful tho
hodayathink
Member
To everyone saying no player salary cap wouldn't be a pay cut, yes it would to basically everyone not in the top 5-10% of players in the league. Remember that the CBA basically designates that 49% of the revenue in the league goes to the players. There is a cap to the amount of money that all the players make, and if the superstars make more, then that means someone is making less (and it's going to be the players in the lower half of the league that weren't making that much anyway), and there's no good reason for the player's union to agree to that.
True Savior
Member
Superstars would accept pay cuts to have more competitive teams. Or not. It was up for teams and players to decide how they balance their salary sheet.
What is the problem today? The excessive rigidness that almost obliges similar pay levels (not totals) in most teams, although they have vastly different levels of talent. The consequence is that if you have 1-2 good teams that were able to be "built" (right now, Warriors and Cavs), it is incredibly hard for other teams to actually counter that cause of that very same rigidness.
Funnily enough, the reason it wont happen is cause the players union knows that a bunch of players would be greedy and fuck the others. That's some beautiful irony eheh.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Like I said, your entire argument is focused on salary = skill in a market where GMs don't follow that line of logic (case in point, what you just said, Pacers chose to pay George to be their franchise player regardless of how much LeBron made. They paid him because he is their icon, not because they think he's a LeBron tier player). GMs follow a completely different logic depending on the situation they have with their franchises. That's why you often see average players get a valuable contract simply because the FA class was garbage.
Also, you seem to make strange assumptions, so you want teams to decide how much they want to pay guys, but what Indiana did isn't deciding how much they wanted to pay for George? Never mind that a "freer" market (where teams are not limited in how much they can pay a guy) that you want doesn't make sense when you have a soft cap system in place, let alone in terms of resource distribution.
- Status