Guys like Aaron Brooks SHOULD be making backup money while he's a backup. (AP Photo/Matt York)

You're darn right a hard cap is a "blood issue" with both the owners and players. The players are the only ones admitting it right now, but it's obvious that the owners feel the same way. The line in the sand was drawn a long time ago. While many fans are getting caught up in money and revenue-sharing being the biggest issues (billionaires fighting with millionaires), the real issue is the salary cap itself.

Just consider this example: under the current salary cap structure, the LA Lakers can spend $100 million on player salaries and turn a profit, while the Sacramento Kings spend $45 million on player salaries and yet lose money.

Make no mistake - there are two separate issues here. Cash distribution and talent distribution.

The owners know they can figure out the cash distribution amongst themselves. They're all big boys and can devise a revenue-sharing system to help spread the wealth a bit more.

But the biggest issue is this: why are the Lakers even allowed to spend more than twice as much on salaries (nearly double the "cap") in the first place? If you want competitive balance, and you want all teams to have a fighting chance at equitable talent distribution, you have to put more limits on spending.

Let's look back at our friends in the NFL, who have a hard salary cap. No team can spend any more than any other team, regardless of circumstances. Sure, there are poorer teams than others (Tampa Bay, for example) who don't approach the cap each year. But the biggest advantage of the hard cap is that a team like Dallas, whose owner has the deepest pockets in the game, cannot just buy himself a championship.

The National Football Conference, in which the Cowboys reside, has not had a repeat Super Bowl representative in 10 years. TEN YEARS! And yet, despite being willing to spend every penny in their pockets, the Cowboys have failed miserably. Not only have they failed to appear in a Super Bowl during that span, they've only won ONE playoff game. I guarantee you that if the NFL had the same rules as MLB or NBA, the Cowboys would have won multiple championships this past decade, simply because Jerry Jones would sign every player he wanted. He would be the George Steinbrenner, Jerry Buss or Mark Cuban of the NFL.

The NBA owners don't want to impose a hard salary cap like the NFL just to "save them from themselves".

They want the hard salary cap to save them from their peers. They don't want Jerry Buss to be able to spend twice as much as his peers, and 30% over the "cap" at which teams are viable.

To be sure, the current Collective Bargaining Agreement in the NBA allows for the same types of contracts that the NFL enjoys. The owners don't have to exceed the "cap". They have the option to offer as little as one-year, non-guaranteed contracts any time they want, just like the NFL. In theory, they should be able to control their own spending. 

But they can't, for two big reasons.

Reason #1: All it takes is one

In the NBA, guaranteed contracts are a death nell only to the relatively poor. If you're rich, you can offer guaranteed, escalating salaries for multiple years and there is little to no punitive damage thanks to the soft cap. In a league where only 7-8 players get regular playing time on a team, even the most egregious spenders get to bring in new players to replace old ones in the lineup without having to even get rid of those old ones. The Lakers added 2 rotation players to their $100 million 2-time champion team last year without giving anyone away. That's improving 25% of their team even though they were $30 million over the "cap".

So what does that mean to the Sacramento Kings? It means they have to offer the same lucrative contracts (big, long-term, guaranteed money) or they won't get the time of day in negotiations with free agents. Yet, if you don't have the same revenues, you can't afford to keep spending on even more players. So you end up with Beno Udrih making $6 million a year for the next 5 years even though his performance drops off precipitously. And what if a big-money player gets injured? Richer teams just go get new players while still paying the injured guy. Poorer teams turn to a rookie or journeyman and look forward to lots of losses.

Closer to home, take the Amare situation. As I wrote before, teams are allowed to offer the same contracts that NFL players get. Owners are allowed to be prudent. Sarver offered oft-injured Amare a max contract that was only 60% guaranteed (by contrast, Larry Fitzgerald's new NFL deal is less than 40% guaranteed, and Fitz has never been injured!). Amare laughed and said he wanted "an NBA deal, not an NFL deal". The Knicks gave him "an NBA deal" - same money, but all guaranteed for all 5 years. So long, Amare. All it takes is one.


Reason #2: Collusion is illegal

Players and agents say they're only taking what's offered. No one is MAKING the NBA owners offer these crazy deals. And the players would be stupid to reject them.

Great! So what if all the NBA owners sat down and decided, as a unified collective, that no one would offer more than 3-year deals anymore. And that every contract would have an out clause in case of non-performance or injury (non-guaranteed money). And, that no one would exceed the "cap" by more than X dollars, despite the free exceptions they've got. And let's further pretend that they trusted each other not to break those unwritten rules.

In that case, the lockout could end today and the old CBA could be extended. Owners could offer little whatever they want, and the players would have to take it. Fiscal sanity is back!

Not so fast. That's called "collusion" and it's illegal. In a collective bargaining world, one side cannot collude to control prices that intentionally deflate the market. And since the market has been insane for so long, any significant decrease in contracts would be seen as collusion.

The only way the owners can enact some sort of fiscal sanity is to change the rules of the CBA, to protect them from their competitive peers and antitrust violations.

The line in the sand has been drawn.

At some point, the players will compromise, and so will the owners. We will likely end up with something halfway between the NFL hard cap and the old NBA soft cap. Some exceptions, like the midlevel exception, will likely be dropped or dramatically changed. "Bird" rights will be limited to X concurrent uses (like NFL franchise tags). Teams like the LA Lakers won't be able to significantly improve their team if they are already over the cap. Harsher penalties will be enforced on those already there.

Yet players will still get guaranteed deals (though maybe for less years). The stars will get paid big bucks. The solid rotation players will get solid money. And the middling/fringe players coming off a good season will still get middling/fringe money (long term) or a short-term windfall at best.

And the season as well as the NBA's viable future will be saved.

Steve Nash was still one of the best offensive players in the NBA last season, but according to a recent Basketball Reference study he was not quite the elite offensive player against the best teams...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
Remember when Terry Porter coached the Suns? Yeah, it sucked, but the fans made it through that. We'll make it through the lockout, too.

Well, so much for optimism. Today was a key day in NBA labor talks, and ended with a thud. In a session attended by an expanded cast of player and owner representatives after some vague, ostensible progress over the past couple of weeks and whispers of an impending settlement, talks hit the wall again and made the prospect of cancelling preseason games appear inevitable. 

After a 5-hour negotiating session in New York City, NBPA President Derek Fisher said, "right now, we can’t find a place with the league and our owners where we can reach a deal sooner rather than later." Fisher continued: "It’s discouraging and unfortunate, but that’s the reality of where we stand right now."

Additionally, the improved tone of the last two weeks and restraint shown by both owners and players in not discussing their specific differences with the media went out the window today. Deputy Commissioner Adam Silver and Union chief Billy Hunter aired their grievances regarding the position of the other around a hard, soft or flex salary cap.

According to Howard Beck of the New York Times:

Hunter said, "It (keeping the current soft cap) could be characterized maybe as a blood issue" — a remark that Silver seized on as evidence of the union’s rigidity.

"That doesn’t seem a constructive way to negotiate," Silver said.

And 'round and 'round they go. Both sides concur they have moved closer to agreement on financial issues except for the hard or soft cap issue which, of course, has been the major sticking point all along. The current soft cap has so many exceptions that it's not a cap at all. Owners can either err on the side of overpaying to hold onto or add players, or be skewered by fans when they allow players to leave even when the players leave to become clearly overpaid elsewhere (*cough*JOE JOHNSON!*cough*).

As for the players, they think hey, nobody's holding a gun to owners' heads forcing them to ink players to ridiculous deals like the ones signed by Rashard Lewis or Gilbert Arenas on a grand scale and, on a smaller scale, overpaid role players like Josh Childress who litter league rosters. In the players' view, If you don't want to pay guys, you don't have to. Why do owners need a rule to protect them from themselves?

Later this week, Commissioner David Stern, Silver and the owners will meet; Hunter, Fisher and the players will meet separately amongst themselves. After those meetings, next steps will become more clear and will probably soon include the official postponement of training camps and cancellation of preseason games.The regular season is scheduled to start on November 1. There is still time to  work out a deal and start the season then, but it will require some catalyst to get either side to move from their stubborn stances on the one central issue.


So Sarver goes and sells the Suns to the Chinese Basketball League and our favorite, fantastic Phoenix team is no  longer in the NBA.  Gone is MVSteve, BAMF, the Hammer, Dudz, everybody.  If that were to happen, who would be your favorite NBA team, and why?

(What I'm kinda looking for is this: Is there any sort of general consensus on whom BrightSiders would pick as their second favorite team.  If we took a vote on least favorite, I'm sure the Fakers and that team that BEdge cheers for would be on the top of that list.)

If you absolutely had to pick some NBA team other than PHX, whom would you choose?  And why?

Do you cheer for a team that has dazzling point guard play?  Do you cheer on loveable losers who can never get over the hump?

Just curious.  Not a lot of other stuff to talk about.  Maybe go ahead and list the top 5 teams you could cheer AFTER PHX.

Lock and load, peeps.  Fire your comments:

How can we get sick of this dashing countenance?(AP Photo/The Arizona Republic, Michael Chow)  MARICOPA COUNTY OUT  NO SALES

In an interview on XTRA 910 captured here, Rick Welts gets into more detail about a number of things including his departure and future. But a couple of items stuck out in the interview regarding working with Robert Sarver, David Stern, and most importantly, his opinion on the future of the Phoenix Suns. And while we are all scraping the bowl, looking for any kind of Suns specific news, here's just a little bit more, with yours truly attempting to grasp as much content as possible in this chunk of the interview:

  • More on why he's leaving the Suns:

"...I’ve only developed only one skill in my 36 years in this business, and that’s having a great sense of when it’s time to leave a job. Now is the right time..."

I was irrationally skeptical about his departure and certainly unhappy about another change in the Suns front office. But this sounds legit to me.  And let's face it, Welts has some huge honesty points going for him right now, so why doubt the guy, why blame Bob Sarv? (other than because it's fun)... Says Welts:

"...if there’s a good guy in this story, he’s (Sarver) a good guy in this story..."

Sarver is a great guy, he was supportive when Welts "came out," and he handled the departure professionally and all that.


"...I would absolutely confirm on a scale of 1 to 10 he (Sarver) is not an easy guy everyday to work for. I will tell you that the guy that I worked for before him, David Stern for 17 years, is off-the-charts in difficulty to work for. So Robert is a piece of cake, okay?"

Rick forgot to give Bob a number in the 1-10 scale. But it isn't surprising to hear that Sarver isn't a peach. But what NBA owner is? Sterling? Buss? Cuban?

  • Now down to brass tacks....Welts would "buy stock in the Suns?" Why?

"...because of what’s been invested in the infrastructure on the basketball side...I’m a big believer in the people we’ve brought in, and we’ve made big investments in everything that is possible to invest in in building the infrastructure to be a successful basketball organization."

  • OK, so when are the Suns going to be playoff caliber again?

"Whether that’s one year, two years, three years, I’m not sure. But it’s going to happen, and I think when it does, this is going to be a team that’s going to be right in the thick of things and competing for a championship again."


Well, better than nothing, no? And with all of the doom and gloom, question marks, and concerns, there's at least one former suit that thinks things are headed in the right direction, at least upstairs.  We'll see what the new brain trust does about the men on the court who dictate the wins and losses.

Do you think the Suns Current Front Office is capable of rebuilding the team into a championship contender as Welts believes?

  184 votes | Results

Page 1347 of 1789


Sponsored Ads