NBA labor talks broke down on October 20; No new meeting scheduled

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Salary cap would do nothing to stop the stars from coalescing towards NY, LA, and Chicago. They would just drop every player needed to be under the cap when the big time free agents hit the market. The top 10 players in the NBA would all be a Knick, Laker, or Bull. GUARANTEED.

The only way to stop that from happening would be to allow the small market teams to spend more than the big market teams. For instance say the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls have to work with a 50 million cap, and the small market teams can spend 70 million. With that in place, the small market teams would have a chance.[/QUOTE]

If a team could offer lebron 30 million while the lakers could only offer 10m, do you think lebron would chose 10 million? It wouldnt stop the stars from chosing big markets so it could also be assumed that big market teams always have stars in place. And so other stars would have to choose other place instead of the big markets. Thats why they should make it a 45 or 50 million hard cap and just guarantee the players 57-60. But the union doesnt want it coz arenas, johnson, and other overpaid players wouldnt get those contracts they got.

[QUOTE=knicksman]If a team could offer lebron 30 million while the lakers could only offer 10m, do you think lebron would chose 10 million? It wouldnt stop the stars from chosing big markets so it could also be assumed that big market teams always have stars in place. And so other stars would have to choose other place instead of the big markets. Thats why they should make it a 45 or 50 million hard cap and just guarantee the players 57-60. But the union doesnt want it coz arenas, johnson, and other overpaid players wouldnt get those contracts they got.[/QUOTE]

50 million with a hard cap X 30 teams is only $1.5 billion. That is way lower than even the 50/50 split. That's like a 60/40 split in the owners favor.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]50 million with a hard cap X 30 teams is only $1.5 billion. That is way lower than even the 50/50 split. That's like a 60/40 split in the owners favor.[/QUOTE]

they are still guaranteed 57% split. So if the revenue is 4 billion, owners are going to give the players 780 million which is the difference between 2.28 billion(.57*4 billion) and 1.5 billion. So hard cap or soft cap really doesnt matter, Its the BRI which what matters.

The BRI sets the cap not the other way around.

If the split is 50 50 it doesn't matter how much the owners spend or don't spend the players still get 50% of the BRI

As a simplified example if the total BRI is 4 billion the owners promise to spend 2 billion or 50% on the players if they doesn't and spend only 1.5 billion at the end of the season the players union gets a check for 500 million. If the owners spend more than 2 billion on players salaries the players don't get the 8% of their salaries that were held held in escrow

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Salary cap would do nothing to stop the stars from coalescing towards NY, LA, and Chicago. They would just drop every player needed to be under the cap when the big time free agents hit the market. The top 10 players in the NBA would all be a Knick, Laker, or Bull. GUARANTEED.[/QUOTE]

Then why doesn't that happen in the NFL?

[QUOTE=DFish]Then why doesn't that happen in the NFL?[/QUOTE]

Started this year with the Eagles. Also you don't win in the NFL by stacking superstars. It's more important to have decent pieces everywhere than just a few high paid superstars. Washington has tried that strategy too with no success. In the NBA the superstar is much more valuable than the next 11 players. There is only position in football that has that type of importance, and no one is going to overpay to stack quarterbacks.

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE=knickscity]Who'd be your choice? LeBron?

Fish is respected by pretty much every NBA player, that's why he is there.[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me? JJ Reddick's eyes light up when he sees Fisher guarding him.

The big ti,e players seem to think they don't need the owners but it would be interesting just how well a league or competition organized by player would fare. As much as people love the top marquee players and match ups I think they prefer the idea of their team winning the LOB/all the things that goes with that type of competition level. With all that being said it seems to me at least especially in recent years that the NBA has the most fans who are player first fans which is far less common in other North American sports.

Have contracts based on production. The NBA needs to be more like the NFL in that contracts are based on what the player does. That way you won't have a guy play hard one year for a nice contract and become a lazy ass afterwards. I'm tired of this crap. If a player is not producing..he's out. Someone else will be happy to take his spot. The players need to wake up. The NBA needs to be fixed. What benefits the league will benefit the players in the long run. Stop being so freaking greedy..you will still make millions.

[QUOTE=senelcoolidge]Have contracts based on production. The NBA needs to be more like the NFL in that contracts are based on what the player does. That way you won't have a guy play hard one year for a nice contract and become a lazy ass afterwards. I'm tired of this crap. If a player is not producing..he's out. Someone else will be happy to take his spot. The players need to wake up. The NBA needs to be fixed. What benefits the league will benefit the players in the long run. Stop being so freaking greedy..you will still make millions.[/QUOTE]

Great idea, but that would lead to selfish individual basketball. You can't compare the NFL to the NBA, they are two different sports with different structures it makes no sense. Right now teams can place performance clauses is contracts, have team options, partial guarantees. They have this all available right now, they just choose not to use them