Author Topic: David Falk does not paint a pretty picture about workstoppage.  (Read 6619 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: David Falk does not paint a pretty picture about workstoppage.
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2009, 10:33:07 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Players have to work harder or get replaced.

Under your model (which I hadn't thought of before, and am warming up to), there wouldn't be ridiculous situations like Stephon Marbury's.  I would look forward to that.


We wouldn't still be talking about players like Raef being under contract. 


Player like him who are physically done would no longer take up roster space.

Re: David Falk does not paint a pretty picture about workstoppage.
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2009, 10:35:54 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
More NBA trades about talent, not just switching bad contracts.

Re: David Falk does not paint a pretty picture about workstoppage.
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2009, 11:12:27 AM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
Don't you guys think that on some level the players, who are directly responsible for the product on the floor and are using their bodies to make money for the league should be given the same financial security that the owners have? Again, I don't see why the players should be responsible for protecting the owners from being idiots.



On some level, I guess I wouldn't mind changing the way in which salary is distributed in the NBA as long as the same percentage of money goes to the players as does now, just to different, more deserving players. in other words, we add up the salaries this year and calculate that as a percentage of total league revenue. Based on that number, that should be what teams have to pay out; as long as the league is guaranteed to be paying that much out that would offset the teams' ability to cut players. Under this model, Raef would no longer be earning money, but someone like Rondo or Roy, once it's obvious that their talent transcends the rookie wage scale, would be earning that money instead.

Re: David Falk does not paint a pretty picture about workstoppage.
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2009, 11:22:13 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Don't you guys think that on some level the players, who are directly responsible for the product on the floor and are using their bodies to make money for the league should be given the same financial security that the owners have? Again, I don't see why the players should be responsible for protecting the owners from being idiots.



On some level, I guess I wouldn't mind changing the way in which salary is distributed in the NBA as long as the same percentage of money goes to the players as does now, just to different, more deserving players. in other words, we add up the salaries this year and calculate that as a percentage of total league revenue. Based on that number, that should be what teams have to pay out; as long as the league is guaranteed to be paying that much out that would offset the teams' ability to cut players. Under this model, Raef would no longer be earning money, but someone like Rondo or Roy, once it's obvious that their talent transcends the rookie wage scale, would be earning that money instead.


Honestly, I don't care about either the owners or the players pockets.


I care about myself as a fan and how the league could be better.

Re: David Falk does not paint a pretty picture about workstoppage.
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2009, 11:27:28 AM »

Offline EJPLAYA

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3816
  • Tommy Points: 127
Don't you guys think that on some level the players, who are directly responsible for the product on the floor and are using their bodies to make money for the league should be given the same financial security that the owners have? Again, I don't see why the players should be responsible for protecting the owners from being idiots.


No, because the owners HAD financial security before due to their hard work and efforts. THEY are the ones taking all the risk by shelling out all that cash. If their team and/or the league goes under then they stand to lose a fortune. The players don't lose anything other than the ability to make even more obscene money for doing something that every one of them would do for 1/100th the pay if things hadn't gotten out of control. There is nothing at stake for the players. If the NBA wasn't there then they would for the most part be sitting next to us at work. They should be grateful for what they have and not try and strangle the golden goose...

Re: David Falk does not paint a pretty picture about workstoppage.
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2009, 11:34:35 AM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
Don't you guys think that on some level the players, who are directly responsible for the product on the floor and are using their bodies to make money for the league should be given the same financial security that the owners have? Again, I don't see why the players should be responsible for protecting the owners from being idiots.


No, because the owners HAD financial security before due to their hard work and efforts. THEY are the ones taking all the risk by shelling out all that cash. If their team and/or the league goes under then they stand to lose a fortune. The players don't lose anything other than the ability to make even more obscene money for doing something that every one of them would do for 1/100th the pay if things hadn't gotten out of control. There is nothing at stake for the players. If the NBA wasn't there then they would for the most part be sitting next to us at work. They should be grateful for what they have and not try and strangle the golden goose...



so wait, owners got their money due to hard work (and not inheritence, luck, and an economic and social system heavily slanted in their favor), while the players should simply be grateful for what they have? my god, if only the owners and people like them were as humble and grateful as you think players should be, we'd all be much better off.

Re: David Falk does not paint a pretty picture about workstoppage.
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2009, 11:49:21 AM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
Don't you guys think that on some level the players, who are directly responsible for the product on the floor and are using their bodies to make money for the league should be given the same financial security that the owners have? Again, I don't see why the players should be responsible for protecting the owners from being idiots.



On some level, I guess I wouldn't mind changing the way in which salary is distributed in the NBA as long as the same percentage of money goes to the players as does now, just to different, more deserving players. in other words, we add up the salaries this year and calculate that as a percentage of total league revenue. Based on that number, that should be what teams have to pay out; as long as the league is guaranteed to be paying that much out that would offset the teams' ability to cut players. Under this model, Raef would no longer be earning money, but someone like Rondo or Roy, once it's obvious that their talent transcends the rookie wage scale, would be earning that money instead.


Honestly, I don't care about either the owners or the players pockets.


I care about myself as a fan and how the league could be better



Selfishly speaking, as a Boston fan, I think a hard cap would be bad for us. We have a smart GM and an ownership willing to go well beyond the salary cap and luxury tax to fund a good team. We have the history and fanbase to support such ownership. Implementing a hard cap would neutralize our advantage in terms of having good fans because then any random teams would be able to rebuild quickly...look at the NFL and what meaningless teams have participated in recent superbowls: recent expansion teams, teams that stunk recently, teams with no history and teams in markets that are so small they'd never be able to afford teams without revenue sharing. So while a hard cap may help many other teams, it hurts teams like boston that are well run and have loyal and large fanbases.

Re: David Falk does not paint a pretty picture about workstoppage.
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2009, 12:17:21 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I hate the NFL system because that sport by its nature absolutely chews up the bodies and sometimes minds (concussions) of its players.  And for that players can be cut at any time or be forced to "renegotiate" their contracts or be cut.  The only way I can see to make that system fair is to make employment at-will on both ends - the owners can cut a player whenever they please, but the players can also quit a contract when they want.  To keep the backstabbing at a minimum players could only sign with another team at the start of the following year, not jump teams from week to week.

The NBA is at another extreme - one that favors the players getting paid almost without exception.  You offer and sign the contract, you're paying that amount, barring a buyout later on.  This leads to players who aren't able or willing to contribute still collecting huge paychecks.  In the NFL the owners can screw the players at will; in the NBA it's sort of the reverse, once the contract is signed.

What I'd like to see in both leagues is a compromise structure - say, a team can cut a player, but a set portion of the remaining salary agreed to in the contract must be paid to the player.  The % of guaranteed money should be somewhere around 50%, and on a sliding scale based on league experience.  The guaranteed money you pay still applies to your cap, but not your luxury tax figure.  So, teams can cut their losses by getting rid of a non-contributing guy (NFL system) but they are responsible for some of the money they promised at signing (NBA system).   Protects the owners from players slacking, without letting them completely write off the mistake, and gives the players financial security beyond their next paycheck, as well as cutting down on trades for financial reasons.  The biggest problem with this is that the wealthiest teams could sign players with impunity, knowing they can just cut the guy and write it off, but they do this in every system currently used anyway.

Re: David Falk does not paint a pretty picture about workstoppage.
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2009, 12:18:32 PM »

Offline EJPLAYA

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3816
  • Tommy Points: 127
Don't you guys think that on some level the players, who are directly responsible for the product on the floor and are using their bodies to make money for the league should be given the same financial security that the owners have? Again, I don't see why the players should be responsible for protecting the owners from being idiots.


No, because the owners HAD financial security before due to their hard work and efforts. THEY are the ones taking all the risk by shelling out all that cash. If their team and/or the league goes under then they stand to lose a fortune. The players don't lose anything other than the ability to make even more obscene money for doing something that every one of them would do for 1/100th the pay if things hadn't gotten out of control. There is nothing at stake for the players. If the NBA wasn't there then they would for the most part be sitting next to us at work. They should be grateful for what they have and not try and strangle the golden goose...



so wait, owners got their money due to hard work (and not inheritence, luck, and an economic and social system heavily slanted in their favor), while the players should simply be grateful for what they have? my god, if only the owners and people like them were as humble and grateful as you think players should be, we'd all be much better off.

And now it comes clear... More socialism. None of these owners could have possibly worked hard to have gotten where they are today. (tell Mark Cuban that) They have TOO much money and therefore we should give it to the players... Sure they worked hard. Many very talented hard working people don't make the NBA. Not questioning that.

Address the risk issue though. If it doesn't work out for these players they are in no different situation than they would have been if there were no NBA at all to go to. They would be in the same rat race the rest of us are in. They take NO RISK.

Whether or not you think these owners should have the money they have however they got it (and I don't think there is anything wrong with someone's parents working hard and them benefiting from it either), they are the only ones in this that can possibly have a major reduction in their wealth. The players who haven't made the NBA yet don't lose that. They don't have it yet. I guarantee you that I worked every bit as hard to get where I am today that they did to be in a position to make the NBA. Just because they are tall and athletic they are supposed to be multi-millionaires?! There are a handful of players in the NBA truly deserving the big bucks that actually fill the seats. (Lebron, PP, Kobe, etc) They would all play for a million dollars a year. The others would play for a couple hundred thousand a year. I don't think that they shouldn't benefit from the money that the owners are making off them, however if they have a problem with it they can go start their own league and run the whole thing themselves with their own money at stake... Those that take the risk get the reward sometimes. These guys don't take the risks but want to share equally in the reward. That just isn't how it works, nor should it.

Re: David Falk does not paint a pretty picture about workstoppage.
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2009, 12:21:56 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
A hard cap would ultimately be a good thing, I think, but it would absolutely stifle player movement in the short-term.  What would the league do about the teams that are already tremendously far over the cap?

I would imagine there would have to be a transition period of some sort.  Not sure how they would work it out though.