Blog Entry

On big day for NBA, why is the max so sacred?

Posted on: October 18, 2011 9:31 am
Edited on: October 18, 2011 9:58 am
 
NEW YORK – A few thoughts on a very important day for the NBA:

• What does it mean that commissioner David Stern is giving mediator George Cohen one day to solve all the league’s problems before breaking away for two days of Board of Governors meetings? On one hand, it’s unrealistic that Cohen and his colleague, Scot Beckenbaugh, could do in one day what Stern and Billy Hunter haven’t been able to do in two years. On the other, it creates a sense of urgency – without which nothing ever gets done in negotiations. “That’s David’s style,” one league executive said. “He likes deadlines.”

• There are rumblings in the agent community and among team executives that the hawkish position of the players’ association – its line in the sand at 53 percent and inflexibility over competitive aspects of the system – is a recipe for doom. “Sad to say, but I think (the owners) just want to sit the season out,” one prominent personnel man said. The involvement of superstars Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce in the negotiations two weeks ago shook some team executives who believed the two sides were on their way to a deal. “It baffles me that a union of 400 guys is fighting for one or two guys, whereas hundreds of guys are the ones taking the loss,” another team executive told CBSSports.com.

• Several executives fear that Hunter and union president Derek Fisher have been swayed by star players and their agents into taking a hard-line position that could be devastating to hundreds of rank-and-file players if the season were lost. “The thing that they’re fighting for right now is not the middle-of-the-road guy, and that's who you would think the union would be fighting for,” one of the executives said. “They’re fighting for the max guys right now or the max-to-be guys.”

• Longtime agent Steve Kauffman, a player agent during the 1998-99 lockout who now represents coaches and management executives, agrees that not enough time has been spent examining how much money and system flexibility could be freed up by reducing max contracts. “The deal is there to be made,” Kauffman said. “It's ridiculous. The main thing is, tell me what the max salaries are going to be. Because if you want to really help your union, who does the union represent? Whose interests are they protecting? If it's supposed to be everybody, then you've got to strike a balance.”

• Among the negotiating points that the league has said it’s conceded is the initial goal of curtailing the size and length of max contracts. Kauffman believes that’s gotten in the way of getting a deal. “You can make the argument that the stars deserve to be paid 75 or 80 percent of the payroll,” Kauffman said. “But if the max got a 15 percent cut, there would be more room to do those contracts that (the agents) are complaining they can't do. … The superstars are always going to get theirs through endorsements and other avenues.”

• Does this point about max salaries bear out in the math? A 15 percent reduction in future max salaries would represent only 1 percent of BRI annually – about $54 million based on the 21 players who currently make $15 million or more. But over a six-year deal, that’s roughly $325 million – the difference between a players’ share of 52 percent, which sources indicate the union would accept, and 51 percent, a figure that owners likely also would agree to. If the league’s biggest stars took a pay cut, or at least agreed that future max contracts would be reduced by 15 percent, the difference could easily be made up by giving those players a bigger share of licensing money, which currently is divided equally among the players regardless of whether you’re Kobe with millions in jersey sales or Sasha Vujacic, whose only jersey sale likely was transacted by his finance, Maria Sharapova.

UPDATE:

• Some small-market executives are fearful that the amnesty provision being negotiated will turn out to be only another advantage for big-market teams. The provision would allow teams to release an underperforming player and spread the money left on his contract over twice the years remaining, plus one, for cap purposes. One small-market GM envisions this provision being used by big-market teams to collect players cast off by small-market teams. "It's a great idea until Baron Davis goes to Miami," the GM said.

• Do not underestimate the owners' obsession with creating a competitive system that mimics the NFL, through whatever vehicle gets them there. 
"In the NFL, every team has a chance," one team executive said. "That's what makes it great, and we don't have that. We're like Euro League. Until we have revenue sharing and a hard cap, we not going to be a fair league." 

• One final note on the two weeks of games that have been canceled so far. Given reports that league scheduling guru Matt Winick is working on a host of contingency plans, including an 82-game schedule that would begin Dec. 1, it isn’t a foregone conclusion that those games are lost forever. Of importance Tuesday in the mediation session with Cohen is that those games could enter the equation as a valuable bargaining chip. If the two sides reach another impasse on the BRI split, they could be enticed to move closer by getting back the $200 million each side “lost” when those games were canceled.

Comments

Since: Jun 22, 2009
Posted on: October 18, 2011 12:01 pm
 

On big day for NBA, why is the max so sacred?

I think the solution is no resolution for now.  Everyone can get ZERO for a while.  Then, cooler heads will prevail and the players will come to their senses. 



Since: Oct 23, 2006
Posted on: October 18, 2011 10:25 am
 

On big day for NBA, why is the max so sacred?

Only guarentee 2 years of a 5 year deal, the final three will be at the team option.  That would eliminate all the problems of players not putting out the effort, and it would help coaches control the NBA players who are basically uncoachable.



Since: Nov 7, 2008
Posted on: October 18, 2011 10:24 am
 

On big day for NBA, why is the max so sacred?

I think every player believes that they are good enough for a max deal or that they will find some sucker of an owner that will them a Brian Cardinal like deal.  So that is why they are all holding out.  Fisher isn't, or at least never should have been, a max deal guy.  

And it is interesting that the owners are now in the same predicament as the players, i.e. pushing for things that will mostly help the big markets make more mistakes (akin to making the new contract more appealing to max deal players).  

Players are going to get paid what the owners/GM's are dumb enough to pay them.  A player that one team thinks is nothing more than a role player, another team will offer a bigger deal.  The owners cannot get out of their own ways and want to negotiate into a deal checks to stop them from acting like fools with monopoly money.  And then blaming it all on greedy players.


teekgood
Since: Oct 18, 2011
Posted on: October 18, 2011 10:23 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Sep 1, 2009
Posted on: October 18, 2011 10:11 am
 

On big day for NBA, why is the max so sacred?

'By his finance, Maria Sharapova'?

On second thought, maybe she will be financing him in time. 


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com