View Single Post
Old
01-04-2013, 10:59 AM
  #9
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I dont know, this was one of the hills they would die on. why would they be willing to die on a hill that affects so few players ? I'm not an experienced negotiator but I don't understand why you would go into a negotiation and say that these two items are where we draw the line and dig in, when implementing one of the two gets the same result. Ooooooooh, I think I just answered my own question.
The PA believes the front loaded contracts also benefited the "middle tier" of its membership:

1) Cap space opened up by those deals was not only spent on the superstar getting the deal; plenty was directed toward the supporting talent;

2) The length of those deals had another inflationary effect in favor of the middle class beyond the obvious circumvention. Assume 10% growth (last year's impressive growth!) and a $70M cap (just for easy math). In the last CBA, no individual player could be paid more than 20% of of the cap -- Oh heck, here's a chart:

Growth Cap Ind Max Spread Year
$70.00 $14.00 N/A 1
0.1 $77.00 $15.40 $(1.40) 2
0.1 $84.70 $16.94 $(2.94) 3
0.1 $93.17 $18.63 $(4.63) 4
0.1 $102.49 $20.50 $(6.50) 5
0.1 $112.74 $22.55 $(8.55) 6
0.1 $124.01 $24.80 $(10.80) 7

The "Spread" column is the difference between Year One's Max Individual Salary (or whatever cap number the Superstar gets), and the new, higher Max Salary made possible because of growth and a rising cap.

Since the Superstar is bound to a long deal, he doesn't have a claim on that new money. So where does it get spent? On middle class players.

The longer the deal, the bigger this effect.

What happens with shorter deals?

Superstars "reset" more often, consuming more of the new money generated by growth (superstars always get paid), leaving less spread for the rest of the roster.

Whenever trying to suss out why one side or the other is making some claim, it's helpful to remember that both Bettman and Fehr don't represent monolithic individual entities. They represent agglomerations of interests, some of which are not well aligned. So while they have to negotiate with one another, they also have to negotiate with their internal constituencies. The options they wind up presenting across the table are often already compromises their own sides have made among themselves.

Model62 is offline   Reply With Quote