| "The Lockout Continues..." (October 11, 1998)
Hey all there in Internet-land, I have to ask your opinion on the lockout, though. My friends and I usually have a sort of animated discussion saying both sides are idiots for not being able to split up a couple of billion dollars. Personally, I think both sides are in the wrong, but it's hard not to see the players point of view.
They don't want a hard cap, and I don't blame them. MLB doesn't have one. The richest teams tend to win. I know the NBA doesn't want this to happen of you'll see a New York vs. LA series almost every year, because let's face it, Utah ain't rich. On the other hand, basketball ball isn't the same as baseball.
Nevertheless, I can see the idea of a hard cap on the owners side. If the owners are stupid enough to pay Kevin Garnett $120 million over 6 years, guaranteed for a guy who has done nothing (2 all star games a multi-million does not make) that's their fault. Then when players like the esteemed Damon Stoudamire asks for Payton money even though he has never made the all-star game, you've got to scratch your head. Because a team like Toronto won't pay it, but Portland will (ok, Paul Allen can afford it by going into his wallet and pulling that $100 million bill or selling 0.01% of Microsoft stock). I keep going back to 1987 when in baseball the owners decided not to pay free agents and they got nailed with collusion (I think even Ernie Whitt got some money, even though I think he was never going anywhere besides Toronto). If the NBA owners do what the NHL owners are doing now to restricted free agents, I'm sure they will banter about the "C" word. I think there has to be a balance between budgetary restraint and collusion. I think if all the NBA owners get together and say, we've got to keep salaries down to keep the bottom line in sight, that might be seen as collusion, or it might be 29 owners saying, we need to make a profit. I'm not a legal expert.
Of course, the 'soft' cap helps super-stars and hot-shot young players who are in their second year (don't get me started on that stupid rookie cap, ok, I will. Simply put, it sucks. Make it 5 years. 3 years guaranteed like now, and the last two at the teams' option. How many of the best rookies are still with their present team? Garnett and Reeves, I think) but it kills the middle to lower tier players. They get squeezed and then are asked to play for a league minimum. That sucks. I hear that Stackhouse wants $10 million because he says he's 1/3 the player Jordan is, so he deserves 1/3 the money. I think Mr. Stackhouse is missing some serious logic as well as a serious jumpshot. He needs to learn that Mr. Jordan packs them in on TV and in the arena. How many people go to games to see Jerry Stackhouse. When I was in Philly a couple years back, I didn't go to see him, I went to see Don Maclean (who didn't play, and I was pissed).
I know this is a ramble, a rant if you will. Aw, what the hell, it's fun to vent. I don't think the players will cave on the regarding the soft cap. The owners want and need a hard cap for their own protection. I think the rookie cap problem will be solved easily enough, but the Larry Bird rule will haunt them for a while.
Here's my solution on the cap problem. Fix the rookie cap like I said. Set up a soft cap, like now, with 50-55% of revenue (make sure Abe Pollan doesn't hide the stadium revenue in another company like most of the owners do, I have to give props to that. Abe knows what he's doing. The Wizards barely break even and his stadium is making millions because they get parking, concessions, box revenue, etc. While the Wiz only get tickets, TV revenue and merchandise) but have there be a penalty, a tax like MLB for teams that go over 20% over. So the cap is $50 million. $60 mil max or you pay 10% tax to charity or some NBA foundation. And the higher the number the increasing percentage so if you spend like $80 mil you have to pay 20% so it's $16 mil tax. I like it. It makes the owners more accountable. It also makes it a hell of lot more expensive on owners to over spend, so a player might cost $100 over 5 years, but then you have to add the addition cost, so it could be $120 over 5 with the tax. I like it.
And I think players salaries should not be guaranteed. NFL contracts aren't. Why should NBA players be guaranteed. Signing bonus, sure. Like the NFL, counts against the cap, prorated over the length of the contract, but otherwise, you suck, you're out on your butt. See Yinka Dare. This way when the player is cut, he doesn't count against the cap, except for the signing bonus.
Finally, what's the deal with Feerick? Is he on crack? Why does it take him so long to determine if the NBA owners have to pay their players. It's a simple yes or no. He's a really smart guy, sure. But he's an idiot, because he's letting this go on for so long. But then again, he really screwed up on the Spree incident as well.
I guess that's it.
Call have Hoop-LA will travel.
Return to the 1998 edition of Hoop-LA
Return to Hoop-LA Home Page | |