|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | I understand, but there is an implicit assumption in your proposal: that someone other than the long-term players wants to reward the long-term players. Long term stability is something that fans care about -- or at least think they care about -- but players and owners (as groups) really don't care that much.
My attitude is influenced by Euro football. There is no long term stability over there. Players are endlessly looking for a higher bidder for their services, and teams make big profits by buying low and selling high. (Trades are rare, and teams usually sell player rights for cash.) Every now and then you get a guy like Steven Gerrard who plays his whole career with his hometown team, but for the most part players are looking for more money with a more famous team.
And you know what? It works just fine. Some fans whine when their favorite player bails, but I can guarantee you that Euro football fans are not less passionate about their teams and their sport than US fans. When Thierry Henry left Arsenal, for example, the fans got over it. Cristiano Ronaldo bailed on Man U (which was actually his second team) for Real Madrid, but he loves to drop hints about coming back to Man U some day. Yeah, if the check has enough zeros.
I find it refreshing. Americans like to believe all of the rot about loyalty and the like. Even now, there are a lot of people on this board who either (1) choose to forget that Kobe demanded to be traded in '07, or (2) insist on believing that he wasn't serious and that it was part of some clever plan to motivate the front office. Sure, you occasionally get a guy like Dirk or Duncan who takes a paycut to stay with a team, but the prototypical US athlete was David Cone. |
You bring up some great points.
All of these ideas so that players can give the appearance they're being loyal when they're really just being self-serving.
Maybe you have a point. Make it easy for players to leave and move around. Then we'll see who the truly loyal ones are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | 24KaratGold wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | 2 Words: Profit Sharing;
Just give a player with 10 years uninterrupted tenure an automatic 5% stake in franchise value on the day he signs a new contract. At 15 years that stake rises to 10%. And add 1% per year for every year beyond 15. Right now Kobe would have a 14% stake in current market value. Kobe would have happily signed a vet minimum contract. |
You think the owners would want to give up part of their share of the team they own to a player? |
Of course they would not. And for the very same reason that a player should NOT give up the max money he is due. So if owners desire players to give up revenue due them, then it's only logical that they too offer up money. If they are unwilling, then players should also be unwilling to give up a dime as well. That's what makes the one sided calls for players to give up the money they are due so laughable. BOTH parties to the equation need to be willing to give up something for the good of the team, not just the player. |
I guess you don't realize it, but you're really just talking about basic cap circumvention -- where a team gives a player some compensation outside their salary. That's illegal, of course. I can't imagine why you think the NBA would suddenly declare that cap circumvention is okay if the payment is a piece of the franchise.
On top of that, the compensation you're suggestion is enormous -- you really think the Miami Heat want to give Udonis Haslem a $60 million piece of the franchise because he's been there 11 years? That's more than he's made in his entire career.
If anything, your proposal would cause more player movements, because teams would release or cut players before they could get a piece of the franchise. |
Anything that changes the CBA does just that, changes the CBA. The rules are created during CBA negotiations. Anything that the parties deem negotiable gets negotiated.
The point I was making is that it's SILLY to ask the players to give up money for the good of the team without expecting owners to do exactly the same. Obviously the owners would never go for such an arrangement (Even though the very players in questions bear the LARGEST responsibility for the enormous franchise valuation that's lining the pockets of said owner) and that is also the very reason why it's so ludicrous to expect players to give up the maximum they can attain. The whole idea that "If a player doesn't accept less then he really isn't committed to winning" while not applying the same logic to an owner paying more - is just absurd.
The owners set up the salary cap RESTRICTIONS so that they could have unlimited earning potential while limiting the players earning potential. Secondary to that was the owners spreading the the overall wealth generated by the NBA amongst themselves as much as possible. That's why they have profit sharing for owners, but no profit sharing for players. The system was not set up for the purposes of enhancing winning potential. If winning potential were paramount, then there would be no cap on neither player, nor owner, earning potential. The fact that one is capped when the other is not, and one is profit shared when the other is not - makes the ultimate goal of the NBA exceeding transparent.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | The whole idea that "If a player doesn't accept less then he really isn't committed to winning" while not applying the same logic to an owner paying more - is just absurd. |
Realistically, this isn't a big deal. By and large, players take as much money as they can get. They rarely leave much if any money on the table. And pretty much everyone accepts this is the way things are.
Very occasionally, a star like Duncan will take less money for the good of the team, but that's rare. And it happens because the star sees it as being in his self-interest and he's already make 100s of millions of dollars, No one forced this on Duncan; it was his decision.
Very occasionally, someone like Kobe gets a ton of money, and some fans complain he should have taken less for the good of the team. So, yeah, there is some pressure on players, but players generally have no trouble ignoring the pressure and cashing in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | I understand, but there is an implicit assumption in your proposal: that someone other than the long-term players wants to reward the long-term players. Long term stability is something that fans care about -- or at least think they care about -- but players and owners (as groups) really don't care that much.
My attitude is influenced by Euro football. There is no long term stability over there. Players are endlessly looking for a higher bidder for their services, and teams make big profits by buying low and selling high. (Trades are rare, and teams usually sell player rights for cash.) Every now and then you get a guy like Steven Gerrard who plays his whole career with his hometown team, but for the most part players are looking for more money with a more famous team.
And you know what? It works just fine. Some fans whine when their favorite player bails, but I can guarantee you that Euro football fans are not less passionate about their teams and their sport than US fans. When Thierry Henry left Arsenal, for example, the fans got over it. Cristiano Ronaldo bailed on Man U (which was actually his second team) for Real Madrid, but he loves to drop hints about coming back to Man U some day. Yeah, if the check has enough zeros.
I find it refreshing. Americans like to believe all of the rot about loyalty and the like. Even now, there are a lot of people on this board who either (1) choose to forget that Kobe demanded to be traded in '07, or (2) insist on believing that he wasn't serious and that it was part of some clever plan to motivate the front office. Sure, you occasionally get a guy like Dirk or Duncan who takes a paycut to stay with a team, but the prototypical US athlete was David Cone. |
You bring up some great points.
All of these ideas so that players can give the appearance they're being loyal when they're really just being self-serving.
Maybe you have a point. Make it easy for players to leave and move around. Then we'll see who the truly loyal ones are. |
I think "loyalty"is a self-delusion of fans: They want to think the players they root for care about them.
And the players will play that game, and make statements of loyalty when it's suitable, because it's good PR.
In reality, I think the players, the owners (and the fans) all operate out of self-interest.
The perception of "loyalty" comes about because the player's and the team's self-interest allign.
In my opinion, all a player owes a team is to play hard while he's under contract. It's not disloyal to go to another team when that contract ends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^^^
One of the interesting side effects of the Euro mindset is that fans will sometimes support a player's departure, either because the team makes a bunch of money that it can use to buy new players, or just because they want a upgrade. This is not to say that fans don't care about loyalty, but by and large they understand the realities of the business of sports. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | ^^^^
One of the interesting side effects of the Euro mindset is that fans will sometimes support a player's departure, either because the team makes a bunch of money that it can use to buy new players, or just because they want a upgrade. This is not to say that fans don't care about loyalty, but by and large they understand the realities of the business of sports. |
It's not surprising. Lots of Lakers favorites/stars left or were traded and fans adjusted to their departure quickly enough. And many more stars/favs came here from other teams. Lakers fans did not mind Shaq's "disloyalty" to Orlando when he came here. We didn't mind Jamaal Wilkes' "disloyalty" to the Warriors when he signed here. And on and on.
Basically, fans are no different than anyone else -- they only care about their self-interest, but they often like to rationalize their self-interest as some higher principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23912
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | 2 Words: Profit Sharing;
Just give a player with 10 years uninterrupted tenure an automatic 5% stake in franchise value on the day he signs a new contract. At 15 years that stake rises to 10%. And add 1% per year for every year beyond 15. Right now Kobe would have a 14% stake in current market value. Kobe would have happily signed a vet minimum contract. |
Why would he have agreed to a minimum when he knows they would give him the max? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Telleris
Star Player
Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | The whole idea that "If a player doesn't accept less then he really isn't committed to winning" while not applying the same logic to an owner paying more - is just absurd. |
Realistically, this isn't a big deal. By and large, players take as much money as they can get. They rarely leave much if any money on the table. And pretty much everyone accepts this is the way things are.
Very occasionally, a star like Duncan will take less money for the good of the team, but that's rare. And it happens because the star sees it as being in his self-interest and he's already make 100s of millions of dollars, No one forced this on Duncan; it was his decision.
Very occasionally, someone like Kobe gets a ton of money, and some fans complain he should have taken less for the good of the team. So, yeah, there is some pressure on players, but players generally have no trouble ignoring the pressure and cashing in. |
The issue only really reared its head when it became about being paid for past production and for his off court meaning to the team. If he was still worth $24m on court, all would be fine. Those Kobe, Melo, Bosh contracts are (bleep) awful contracts, that's the source of the "discount" cry, and that's kind of where Melo especially took offense, being asked to take less is nicely worded as "we need you to take less to win", as a PR rub, but what they were really saying was "you aren't worth that much", as everyone would be fine paying Lebron and Durant that or even more right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Treble Clef wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | 2 Words: Profit Sharing;
Just give a player with 10 years uninterrupted tenure an automatic 5% stake in franchise value on the day he signs a new contract. At 15 years that stake rises to 10%. And add 1% per year for every year beyond 15. Right now Kobe would have a 14% stake in current market value. Kobe would have happily signed a vet minimum contract. |
Why would he have agreed to a minimum when he knows they would give him the max? |
Because 14% of $2billion is 10 times more money than he got. 
And every dollar he takes in salary lowers the franchise valuation figure that he'd then be getting 14% of. 
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Telleris wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | The whole idea that "If a player doesn't accept less then he really isn't committed to winning" while not applying the same logic to an owner paying more - is just absurd. |
Realistically, this isn't a big deal. By and large, players take as much money as they can get. They rarely leave much if any money on the table. And pretty much everyone accepts this is the way things are.
Very occasionally, a star like Duncan will take less money for the good of the team, but that's rare. And it happens because the star sees it as being in his self-interest and he's already make 100s of millions of dollars, No one forced this on Duncan; it was his decision.
Very occasionally, someone like Kobe gets a ton of money, and some fans complain he should have taken less for the good of the team. So, yeah, there is some pressure on players, but players generally have no trouble ignoring the pressure and cashing in. |
The issue only really reared its head when it became about being paid for past production and for his off court meaning to the team. If he was still worth $24m on court, all would be fine. Those Kobe, Melo, Bosh contracts are (bleep) awful contracts, that's the source of the "discount" cry, and that's kind of where Melo especially took offense, being asked to take less is nicely worded as "we need you to take less to win", as a PR rub, but what they were really saying was "you aren't worth that much", as everyone would be fine paying Lebron and Durant that or even more right? |
Honestly, if we had no cap, I wouldn't care if they paid Kobe $24M. What bothered me is how much of that $24M impacts the cap. People like to ignore that piece, but you can't tell me that one 36-year old player making 40% of the cap, isn't worse than the same player making 0% of the cap (no cap) and better than the same player making 100% of the cap (assuming $24M cap). The debate gets lost when we center it around $24M. It should be around a different number: 40%.
Anyway, I liked this idea because it tries to help players who have value beyond the court get paid, without hurting a team's ability to improve on the court. But, perhaps, that's what the salary cap is about after all. It forces teams (if they want to be efficient) to compensate players only for what they contribute on the court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Love an idea like this. If Kobe's cap hit was 50% of what it is now, why do I care what he is making.
I feel like there are potential holes here though, but I gotta think them through first. |
Of course there are potential holes. But I think in the next CBA negotiations (and I now do this as a living so just had some ideas to kick around), both parties will legitimately point out:
1. players: why the hell are we forced to take massive paycuts to put a roster around me?
2. owners: the players have seized too much control (LBJ) and are now the GMs. We need a mechanism to incentivize staying on a team besides Bird Rights and the ability to offer a 5 year max after a rookie deal.
This kind of addresses both. It doesn't impinge on a player's right to be a free agent. But if you want to put a super team together, it's going to have a quick expiration date. But if you stay on your team, get that salary cap % discount, now you can get paid AND put a real contender around you even after you've hit your 10th and 15th (plus) years. |
Wouldn't this be in both parties' interests though? The owner could just hire a cheaper GM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
