BadBaronRudigor

A way to keep the same total figures of player compensation but to compensate the good players while not overpaying the Jerome James types would be for the players union to negotiate a pay scale. Figure out the percentage of total team revenue that goes to player salary and put that in a league wide pot (with the union having the right to check the books of course). Then distribute to the players on a per minute played basis (regular and playoff). Even though total pay would be the same for both the players and owners, the players would receive the equivalent of an immediate 10% gain in salary because they wouldn't need agents to negotiate their contracts (about 5% of the agents' 15% I would assume you still need to pay for financial management, increased union dues because of the increased responsibility, etc.) As for the owners, the one thing they all claim to hate is negotiations with agents so their pleasure in their teams would be increased; plus, this helps coaches control their teams since players can see their efforts to please the coach rewarded in increased minutes/salary.

To solve issues of (a) star power, (b) injury, and (c) player movement, this pay scale should have the following adjustments.

(a) The all-star team should include the five players voted in by fans (and the votes should be on the backs of tickets so that only fans who attend games should have their votes count - - but that's a separate issue) PLUS one player from each team that didn't have at least two players voted in by fans. This gives the small market/bad teams a way to attract a marketable star who feels that someone else is getting the big money in his city and that he should be the man. Additionally, there should be two more salary doublers . . . League MVP and Finals MVP so a truly great player who wins all three would get EIGHT TIMES mamimum salary based on minutes. This way a Michael Jordan could get the 80 million a year he is worth as clearly the best player in basketball.

(b) Salary should be the greater of this year's calculated salary and 2/3 of last year's salary (for players who played more than 20 minutes a game previous year . . . 1/2 for 10-20 minutes . . . non guaranteed for those with less than 10) and 1/3 of 2 years previously's salary (again, only for players who played more than 20/game 2 years ago). This is base salary without All-Star bonuses, etc. but it keeps an injured player in the multimillionaire category without losing his mortgage, etc.

(c) Finally, salaries should be adjusted for time with a team. The first year with a team (rookies, player moves, etc.) should receive 15% under base pay caluculation. Second year 5% under; third year 5% over, and fourth year 15% over to encourage players to make lasting commitments to a city. However, with that, there should be free movement of any player with at least four years in the league so players can choose their teams (at a financial loss which might be recouped by the All-Star bonus, extra minutes, etc.) and either trading players should be banned or traded players get to keep their time with a club money (if so, call it years without free agency money).

Some food for thought.

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

Redbeard

Some interesting thoughts about a subject the really needs to be considered in coming years.
A couple of flaws that I thought while reading.

It gives to much power to the coach. Although we would like to think we can always trust the coach's decisions, but if a coach and player just rub the wrong way, the coach is in a position to impact the players salary and that isn't a position the union will allow. Also, when changing coaches, a new coach may want to run a slow game and a high speed player may lose PT over the year before and money due to that change.

There are so many different things you can do and it is good to keep the thoughts fresh. Keep it up.

__________________
The age of dynasties is upon us.

BadBaronRudigor

Absolutely it gives the coach a lot of control but who better? There is unlimited player movement after the rookie contract and the problem in the NBA generally isn't too much coach control it's too little . . . see Starbury, Baron Davis, etc.

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

jokeaward

Well that's quite the idea. I don't really like it, the game is still very good even though many GMs make fools of themselves. I think the soft cap is reasonable enough, maybe the MLE should go to about 3 years max to cut off deals like Foyle, James, and Cardinal at an appropriate length (think about it, they'd be finishing this year). But if Portland gets cap room or Bird rights and wants to completely max out Stephen Jackson if he were available, so be it. Or the signings from rookie status like Randolph and Troy Murphy.

And I really don't like the All-Star idea. There could be some arbitrators well-versed in the game and statistics who could give nice bonuses, but not fan voting.

Then on C you really lost me. Players with 4+ years choose their teams? That's absurd, worse than playground rules... the teams in nice places like Miami and LA would be ridiculous and smash the rest of the league's young players on destitute teams.

And why would Davis or Marbury be movers after the rookie contract? They have never signed elsewhere as free agents. Davis was loyal, and about 1% of players couldn't find a way to play with KG. The tenure bonuses wouldn't usually be necessary.

LOL, unlimited. Where are AI, Kobe, Pierce, Dirk, Duncan, Gasol, etc. compared to their draft city?

__________________
You're up, the pigpen bugged
When Big Ben struck
and split like Lithuania, from Russia with Love
This Pisa lean, limp
Germinate your Swiss Miss hugs
With a flying circus of death to guarantee your Christmas SUCKS

- Aesop Rock on Nuclear Five's "The Presence" feat. Masai Key and Karniege

BadBaronRudigor

Just a quick correction, the comment about Marbury and Baron Davis was in response to the post complaining that plan gave coaches too much power; they are two players who supposedly had issues playing the way the coaches asked leading to the firing of Larry Brown and Mike Montgomery respectively (though that may be a good thing, lol). Had nothing to do with their leaving teams; though both used their leverage to force trades (again, according to the media).

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

lw32

Nobody would agree to such a deal. Especially not Billy Hunter and the NBPA. I can't really seeing the NBA office and owners agreeing either.

If the NBA wants a fair paying scheme they'll follow the NFL with non-guaranteed contracts and large signing bonuses. That's not going to happen though, the Players Union will hold a lock out before agreeing to such a wage structure.

There's little bargaining room when it comes to the current contract system. And it's not going to change. Guaranteed contracts will continue, thus players will be overpaid.

Paying based on minutes would never work. It'd be bad for the NBA. The players would gain more power over the coaches, demand to be in the game for a longer amount of time. Player's will have an incentive not to blow out games, but to keep them close. It's like point shaving for their own financial benefit.

__________________
Charles Barkley: "I think it would have been an insult if they put Bird on me. He was the worst defensive player ever."

"Stanley's idea of a balanced meal is a Big Mac in each hand" -- then Orlando Magic GM Pat Williams on overweight Magic first round draft choice Stanley Roberts

Nimreitz

How do injured players get paid if the payscale is by minutes played?