In conversations with front-office executives Tuesday night, I was told some strong stuff regarding the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement. As you probably know, the current CBA will end after the 2010-2011 season.

The gist of what I was told is that the owners will go for the jugular and drop the players’ salaries immensely.

I spoke with one executive about Amare Stoudemire and was told that, the way owners are talking now, Stoudemire wouldn’t even get a five-year contract worth $60 million under the next CBA. That sounded crazy to me, but when I spoke with a team owner an hour later, he made the executive sound tame.

“The owners are really going to chop the money down,’’ the owner said. “I think Stoudemire would get $5 or $6 million [annually] in the next deal. The bottom line is that things are going to change dramatically.’’

Five to six million dollars for a five-time All-Star in his prime? That sounds cruel compared with the players’ current salaries, so cruel that I just don’t believe it. A general manager I spoke with later agreed that that was an extreme.

“That [$5 million for Stoudemire] sounds a little bizarre, but player salaries are definitely going to take a hit,’’ the GM said. “Players that come up for contracts under the new CBA are going to find themselves getting a lot less money.’’

It’s well-known that owners will try to shorten contracts. Currently, players can sign contracts as long as six years. One GM told me the owners are looking to shorten the maximum length of a contract to four or five years. He added that they have actually discussed trying to guarantee only the first two years of a four-year deal, and that the third and fourth years would be guaranteed only if a player reached certain performance-based incentives the previous season.

In other words, it would be closer to the NFL than to today’s NBA.

“Those concepts are being discussed,’’ another GM told me. “Is there a sentiment among some [owners] that they’d like to have it like football? Yeah. But I think that’s out of bounds.’’

Severe drops in salary. Non-guaranteed contracts. Billy Hunter, the Executive Director of the Players Association, will not settle for that without a fight, and the owners know it.

“There’s going to be a lockout,’’ the owner said. “There’s not even a doubt in my mind about that. Billy’s not going to make a deal like that. Teams are already saving up money for a strike.’’

Maybe the players should start saving too.

i wonder how this will impact this legendary 2010 class. the top 3 guys will get their money but the rest of the pack...will gm's give them long term deals knowing a lockout is on the horizon?

now teams won't have to be stuck in the cellar of losing and misery if they give big contract to bum.

what they should have is more bonuses and stuff. like you start at 5m but if you come into camp in shape, you get another 1m.

bitty41 wrote:I think a Lock-out would hurt the NBA tremendously but it's clear the current system is just not working. Way too many stupid GMs signing overrated players to multi-year/million dollar contracts. When guys like Larry Hughes can command 13 million dollars a year there is a major problem in your league.

I always get nervous with this sort of language. Basically we need to enact rules that will compromise the earning power of players, in order to save owners and GM's from their own stupidity.

But I dont want the new CBA to be used as an excuse to protect the coffers of owners and stupid GM's from themselves with the idea of limiting player's salaries artificially.

Larry Hughes didnt enter the negotiating table with a shotgun. Some idiot thought he was actually worth superstar money.

bitty41 wrote:

I always get nervous with this sort of language. Basically we need to enact rules that will compromise the earning power of players, in order to save owners and GM's from their own stupidity.

No but pay should have at least something to do with performance. What is Larry Hughes earning sitting the bench and being hurt all the time? You cannot tell me that he is generating any revenue for the Knicks.

Just like the rest of the world, players should be answerable for their performance.
However, as I believe sebstar is saying, no one is FORCING the GMs to offer long term contracts with no performance incentives, except the (real) threat other GMs out bidding them with more years and less conditions. So in some ways, seb is right that the owners are asking for protections from themselves.
The real villain here is the cap. If teams want to outbid each other's stupidity and take on dumb contracts, that's one thing. But hampering a team from being able to improve itself because it can't go out and hire new and better players in the free agent market is the real problem.
What would be the problem in allowing teams to write players off their cap if they are cut from the team?
Or how about being able to trade a player to another team for however much that other team is willing to pay that player, and the existing team eats the rest of the salary, but its removed from the cap?

What it boils down to is that sport leagues are semi-monopolies. You can go play for any of 30 or so teams, but the league as a whole needs to remain healthy, which is a subjective measure -- which some people seem to think requires socializing revenues so that small market teams can compete. Maybe that's true, maybe not. Anyway, its a complicated structure, and I don't think its so easy to paint the bosses or the players as villains. They need each other to succeed and to profit.

sebstar wrote:There is no question that cats like Hughes are laughably overpaid, but whats the remedy? Now if GM's want to be more judicious with the contracts and/or hand out more incentive or performance based deals I'm all for it.

But I dont want the new CBA to be used as an excuse to protect the coffers of owners and stupid GM's from themselves with the idea of limiting player's salaries artificially.

Larry Hughes didnt enter the negotiating table with a shotgun. Some idiot thought he was actually worth superstar money.

I think a fair trade off is contracts are guaranteed but if a buy out is reached in that amount comes off the present salary cap and the buyout should include negotiations for any other year and the contract is removed totally any year after. League rules should stipulate buyout should not exceed 80 percent of remaining contract.

A team can also have the option of buying it's way out of a contract with no buyout but it would cost 85 percent of the remaining salary. But in this case-to facilitate a negotiated buy out a player can that is straight up bought out can not sign a contract with a dollar value exceeding say, the MLE for the number of years remaining on the contract he was bought out from.

Example. Curry is do $10 mil this year. $11 or so next. that is $21 mil. Max buyout is 80 percent of $21 or $17 mil or so. Contract comes totally off the books for next season.