Stern: Player Salaries to Be Cut By 1/3

[BGrantFan]

Here comes a work stoppage!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5711172&campaign=rss&source=NBAHeadlines

NEW YORK -- NBA commissioner David Stern said Thursday there was no quantifiable progress in collective bargaining talks over the summer, and the league revealed it is seeking a reduction in player salary costs by about one-third.

Stern said the league wants player costs to drop $750 million to $800 million. Deputy commissioner Adam Silver said the NBA spends about $2.1 billion annually in player salaries and benefits.

"We would like to get profitable, have a return on investment," Stern said. "There's a swing of somewhere in the neighborhood of $750 to $800 million that we would like to change. That's our story and we're sticking with it."

 

[HailBlazers]

"That's our story and we're sticking with it."

My way or the highway! At least we know its a story, and not the truth.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Their salaries should be cut. But it's hard to take high salaries away once you've given them. No one would like that.

 

[Wheels]

well its a good thing I will have Ducks football and MLS next year to get me through part of the work stoppage. January- March I'm screwed though.

 

[Denny Crane]

If they go to a hard cap (which is well below the LT) and grandfather in the existing contracts, they would reach their stated salary levels. When it comes time for the big contract guys to renew, they're going to suffer a big pay cut though.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Their salaries should be cut. But it's hard to take high salaries away once you've given them. No one would like that.

But 2/3rds of a salary will look pretty damn good after they go an entire season without any salary.

The players unions is going to get pummeled worse than the UCLA Bruins did last night.

 

[BGrantFan]

If they go to a hard cap (which is well below the LT) and grandfather in the existing contracts, they would reach their stated salary levels. When it comes time for the big contract guys to renew, they're going to suffer a big pay cut though.

The only way around that is to go with the NFL model of non-guaranteed contract, but with cap implications for simply cutting a high-salary player.

Is there any way the players' union is going to go from guaranteed contracts now to non-guaranteed contracts with a 33% reduction to the overall pool?

I'll be interested to see which major NBA star decides to go to a team like Real Madrid in order to make millions per year more than they will in the NBA. That's really the only leverage the players have, IMO. Either threaten to go overseas with star players, or try and start their own league, which would be near impossible.

 

[crandc]

Will the owners, and Stern, give up 1/3 of their income?

 

[hasoos]

Maybe the replacement Blazers will win the championship!

 

[BGrantFan]

Will the owners, and Stern, give up 1/3 of their income?

Why should they?

 

[blazerboy30]

Their salaries should be cut. But it's hard to take high salaries away once you've given them. No one would like that.

Why should their salaries be cut?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Will the owners, and Stern, give up 1/3 of their income?

Paul Allen has given up over half of his wealth.

Actually he's lost it in bad investments but same difference.

Not sure I get what point you're trying to make.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Why should their salaries be cut?

So owners will be able to pay for the players Obamacare.

 

[noknobs]

What's quite alarming is that the NBA is even thinking about contraction.

In another staggering development, CBSSports.com learned that salaries may not be the only area cut as the NBA tries to gets its financial books up to speed with the explosion in popularity the league will experience this season. A person with knowledge of the owners' discussions said the league "will continue to be open to contraction" as a possible mechanism for restoring the league to profitability.

The owners' ongoing talks about competitive balance, profitability and revenue sharing have included the notion of whether teams are operating in "the best available markets," the person said, and whether reducing the number of teams from the current 30 would help improve the product and the bottom line.

I'm all for that. Saying goodbye to the Grizzlies, Timberwolves, Bucks and Bobcats would save the league a few hundred million in needless salaries and improve the product dramatically. When the NBA had 23 teams in 1980-81, having multiple Hall of Famers on the same team was the norm. Back then, the Heat would've been nothing special. Today, they're a national spectacle covered 24 hours a day.

That's a lot of people losing their jobs if that happens.

 

[BGrantFan]

What's quite alarming is that the NBA is even thinking about contraction.



That's a lot of people losing their jobs if that happens.

New Orleans can't be making money. Charlotte can't be making money. Cleveland won't be making much money. Does anybody in Toronto care about the Raptors?

That's 4 teams that may be on a future chopping block. If the economy really is in a "new normal" with double unemployment and lower wages than even 4 years ago, then it would make sense for the NBA to contemplate getting rid of dead weight.

 

[noknobs]

New Orleans can't be making money. Charlotte can't be making money. Cleveland won't be making much money. Does anybody in Toronto care about the Raptors?

That's 4 teams that may be on a future chopping block. If the economy really is in a "new normal" with double unemployment and lower wages than even 4 years ago, then it would make sense for the NBA to contemplate getting rid of dead weight.

I don't consider the thousands of employees for those teams and their families to be dead weight. I consider Eddy Curry, and his 11.3$ million salary to be dead weight. Player salaries and guaranteed contracts are the problem, not the Raptors.

 

[THE HCP]

Maybe the replacement Blazers will win the championship!

I'll be a scab player! Like the old school movie The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh!

 

[THE HCP]

 

[hasoos]

I'll be a scab player! Like the old school movie The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh!

ROFL I totally forgot about that movie. It was totally kick ass. Wasn't Dr. J in that movie?

 

[THE HCP]

Why when I post a link, it just shows the link, not the movie window?

 

[BGrantFan]

I don't consider the thousands of employees for those teams and their families to be dead weight. I consider Eddy Curry, and his 11.3$ million salary to be dead weight. Player salaries and guaranteed contracts are the problem, not the Raptors.

Millions of people have lost their jobs the past couple of years in all types of industry. Running a business at a loss is just not going to happen, no matter how much it hurts to let go employees. I agree with your sentiment, but the reality to me is that the players are more important to the NBA than the team employees, and if some teams are operating at a big loss with no hope of recovery, then maybe contraction is worth at least considering sometime down the road.

 

[BGrantFan]

ROFL I totally forgot about that movie. It was totally kick ass. Wasn't Dr. J in that movie?

He was. He gave a more wooden performance than the chair I am sitting in right now!

 

[noknobs]

Millions of people have lost their jobs the past couple of years in all types of industry. Running a business at a loss is just not going to happen, no matter how much it hurts to let go employees. I agree with your sentiment, but the reality to me is that the players are more important to the NBA than the team employees, and if some teams are operating at a big loss with no hope of recovery, then maybe contraction is worth at least considering sometime down the road.

Well I think in order to reduce salary by around $750 million, both will unfortunately have to happen. Contraction and reduced player salaries, with at least partial non-gauranteed money. The league clearly revolves around the players, but I think the players are about to find out that as long as they're 'earning' these exorbitant contracts, the league can't be profitable and, like you said, it's a business running at a loss. It simply can't continue. No league, no more money for players. They can either accept a massive paycut, or they can have a lock out and lose it all, or play overseas. Knowing how stupid players are with their money, I think they'll flinch first. But there will 100% be a lockout.

 

[RoyToy]

Yeah, a lockout seems to be a foregone conclusion. The owners lose less money by by not playing the games than do playing. They should be able to holdout for a lot of what they want and be comfortable with it. The players are going to have to cave on this one.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Why should their salaries be cut?

It's my personal opinion that they make too much money.

 

[THE HCP]

It's my personal opinion that they make too much money.

You worth is judged by what somebody is wiling to pay you son!

 

[blazerboy30]

It's my personal opinion that they make too much money.

Compared to what?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

You worth is judged by what somebody is wiling to pay you son!

And they all want to pay them less.

 

[blazerboy30]

And they all want to pay them less.

And the only reason they got so high is because it was worth it to the fans to watch.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I guess this means we should probably just sit back and try to enjoy the season no matter how well or poorly the team plays, it could be awhile before we get to watch these guys play after April (May? June?).