Per ESPN…
In the strongest comments yet by a players’ union official since NBA owners made a new collective bargaining proposal, vice president Adonal Foyle of the Orlando Magic said the offer put forth last week by commissioner David Stern’s office is “ludicrous.”
“I think it’s a proposal that’s far-reaching,” said Foyle, the union’s second-in-command behind president Derek Fisher. “This [new proposal] has gone too far. It wants a hard cap, it basically will create no middle class and which, in effect, means none of the Bird rules would apply,” Foyle added, referencing the so-called Larry Bird exception that allows teams to exceed the salary cap to retain their own free agents.
In addition to a hard salary cap to replace the current system of a “soft” cap, with its accompanying luxury-tax penalties for teams that exceed a certain payroll threshold ($69.9 million this season), owners have asked that contracts be shortened to a maximum of four years, Foyle said.
A hard cap would likely increase parity. The NFL has a hard cap, so teams have to decide which players to keep even if they have an owner with deep pockets that would be willing to re-sign everyone. This is why dynasties are extinct in the NFL.
NFL stars understand that every dollar they make is a dollar that the club can’t spend somewhere else, which is why we often see star players restructure their contracts to free up cap space. A hard salary cap provides a completely level playing field, which is one reason why there is so much parity in the NFL.
The downside to the hard cap, especially in the NBA, is that with only five starters and 7-10 bench players, it’s difficult to keep continuity year-to-year. Fans want their teams to be able to keep their star players, which is where those “Larry Bird rights” come in.
I don’t see the soft cap as a major problem, but if you look at a list of the top payrolls, there is a direct correlation between money spent and regular season wins. Is it fair? Not really. A hard cap would certainly level the playing field for small market teams like Milwaukee, Minnesota and Sacramento, as they would become far more competitive in the free agent market.
The larger problem is the length of guaranteed player contracts. The proposed CBA would lower the maximum length to four years, which is a good idea. One of the biggest reasons for bloated payrolls is the guaranteed contract. They should shorten the max length or make the last two years of a six-year deal non-guaranteed, which would allow the team to cut the player and only pay, say, 50% of his salary.
In any case, Foyle’s comments (i.e. ludicrous, rash, unfair) are worrisome, as it indicates that the two sides are very far apart at this point in time.
