Another NBA Lockout?: Where That Probably Isn't the Best Idea Happens

CBSSports.com Senior Writer Ken Berger reported on Tuesday that the NBA and its players union began talks on a new collective bargaining agreement that will start when the current one expires after the 2010-11 season.

According to Berger, "No formal proposals were exchanged, given that this was only a preliminary step in a two-year process aimed at ratifying a new agreement without enduring a damaging lockout like the one that hampered the NBA in 1998-99."

Even players union president, Derek Fisher, acknowledges that changes are inevitable.

Berger adds, "Under the current CBA, players are guaranteed 57 percent of league revenues, with any overage getting refunded to the teams through the players' escrow fund. The owners are believed to be pushing for closer to a 50-50 split."

The fact that Fisher and NBPA executive director Billy Hunter are at least willing to acknowledge that the current system isn't working is a step in the right direction as far as starting points are concerned.

Both the players union and the owners are fully aware of the consequences involved should there be another work stoppage, since neither side is expected to win the people's vote in another squabble between billionaires and millionaires.

Over the last 15 years, we've seen work stoppages in three of the four major sports and the consequences from each are still reverberating.

The TV ratings for the series-clinching game in the 1991 World Series, the last one that involved two American teams before the 1994 strike, was a 32.2.

No World Series game since then has had a rating higher than a 24.5, despite the fact that the New York Yankees, baseball's most popular team and in it's largest market, have participated in five of them.

By comparison, last year's series-clinching Game Five between the Phillies and Rays drew a 9.6.

Major League Baseball seemed to have recovered from the cancellation of the 1994 World Series in 1998 when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa chased the ghost of Roger Maris in their battle for home run supremacy.

In hindsight, the public now feels duped by two men who (allegedly) cheated and whose records are now tainted.

The National Hockey League still hasn't recovered from the 2004-05 lockout. If you don't believe me, ask a hundred random sports fans what channel Versus is on their television sets and let me know how many answered correctly.

The NBA's lockout in 1998 wasn't so much felt in TV ratings as it was in interest among the casual sports fan. The delay to the start of the season caused the league's most popular and marketable star, Michael Jordan, to retire (he would eventually return in 2001) and deprived his Chicago Bulls the opportunity to chase a fourth consecutive championship, something that handn't been accomplished since the Boston Celtics did it in 1962 on their way to eight consecutive titles.

Much of the reason why TV ratings have gone down across the board is due to the competition that comes with so many more networks on our televisions in 2009 than there were even 12 or 15 years ago.

But that's the point.

The NBA needs to realize that for every day that operations cease another 1,000 casual fans discover something else they enjoy just as much, if not more than basketball, and realize that their lives aren't devoid of anything without the NBA.

Contending teams won't struggle to see their fan bases return so much as the bottom ten teams and those fifteen teams in the middle will.

For example, Dallas Mavericks fans have been pining for a championship since the early part of the decade. A work stoppage would just give the casual fan the perspective to realize that their team has no chance. But in the midst of a run in which they defeated an injury-depleted Spurs team in last season's playoffs and had a busy summer they think they are actually contenders this year.

While it's no surprise that big changes are in the works in light of the state of the economy, there are a number of issues that I believe should be on the table for discussion in an effort to amend the flaws in the current agreement.

Recent history would suggest that some of these are pipe dreams on my part, but what's the harm in bringing them up for discussion?

Another Amnesty Provision

Back in 2005 the NBA instituted a one-time Amnesty Provision, also known as the Allan Houston Rule, that allowed teams to waive one player without being responsible for paying the luxury tax on that player's contract—although teams were still responsible for paying out the remainder of those contracts.

It would make an awful lot of sense for the NBA to bring back the provision. It would make even more sense for them to bring it back before the current CBA expires.

Players like Samuel Dalembert, Jared Jeffries, Peja Stojakovic, and Andrei Kirilenko would top the list of overpaid players who could save their current teams an awful lot of scratch given the chance to waive them without having to pay double their salaries with the luxury tax.

But even mid-level salaried players such as Luke Walton, James Posey, and Matt Carroll would ease the burden on teams if they were only required to pay out the contracts.

The NBPA wouldn't care because their guys would still get paid and those who are released could essentially double-dip when signing contracts with their next team.

The only opposition might come from those owners like Donald Sterling who are continuously under the luxury tax and enjoy collecting their share of the luxury tax money from the tax-paying teams.

Opt Out of Opt-Outs

This one is definitely a long-shot but it's time for the NBA to do away with player options. How often do player's exercise options where the outcome is positive for the team?

There are only a few instances I can think of.

Last summer Trevor Ariza exercised his option to stay with the Lakers, but that was mainly due to the fact that there were only a couple of teams with cap space and he had missed a lot of games due to a stress fracture in his foot that sidelined him for most of the second-half of the season and the first three rounds of the playoffs.

But most of the time player options are a Catch-22 for teams. Either the player exercises his option to stay because he knows he doesn't deserve the money he's due and he will never get a better offer somewhere else (Eddy Curry), or he'll opt out because he feels he deserves more years and more money and the team can't afford to let him walk away (Gilbert Arenas).

In one instance the teams is stuck with an overpaid stiff and in the other instance they find themselves outbidding themselves for the right to keep a player they've already invested time and money in and don't want to risk losing that player and watching him realize his potential elsewhere.

The way the league is currently constructed leaves very little margin for error. It's not often that a team decides to let a lottery pick leave after his rookie deal expires.

The bad teams end up extending their lottery picks every year and are left with nothing but their mid-level exception with which to improve their rosters.

Because they are bad teams, they have to overpay lower-tiered free agents like Jerome James, Jared Jeffries, Beno Udrih, and Jason Kapono in order to get anyone to sign with them.

So what teams are left with is two or three lottery picks making too much money for the next four or five years and a couple free agent stiffs who nobody will take in a trade until their contracts are in their final years.

Eliminating player options would at least give teams the power with which to better mold their rosters every year or two and provide incentive for players to earn their next contract instead of playing like they know their money is guaranteed.

Compare the NBA's current model with those of MLB and the NFL. Since baseball has no salary cap teams can spend money freely to improve. In football, a team like the defending NFC Champion Arizona Cardinals can turn their franchise around with a couple good drafts and a few notable free agents. It also doesn't hurt that contracts in the NFL are non-guaranteed.

In the NBA one bad contract can haunt you for half a decade.

Small Market vs. Big Market

One of the key issues that will be discussed throughout negotiations will be how the teams in the larger markets can help to subsidize the teams in smaller markets with more than just the luxury tax.

The NBA's dirty little secret is the unfair advantage given to big market teams when it comes to retaining free agents and paying the luxury tax.

While the licensing and network television money is dispersed evenly amongst all 30 teams, things like local TV and radio deals as well as ticket prices and luxury suite revenues go to the individual owners.

The Lakers have local TV and radio deals not just in California but also in Nevada and Hawaii, states without professional sports teams. Los Angeles is the nation's second largest television market and has 16 Fortune 500 companies based in or around it to buy up those expensive luxury suites. The average ticket price for a Lakers game last season was a league-leading $93.25.

Compare that with Memphis, the country's 38th largest TV market with only three Fortune 500 companies. The average cost of a ticket to a Grizzlies home game last season was $24.11.

A naming rights deal or the amount of money teams get for arena signage from sponsors will always be greater in larger markets than smaller ones. Perhaps it's time for a greater percentage of that money to be shared and factored into the Basketball Related Income (BRI) totals that determine the league's salary cap.

The problem is that the NBA will never discourage it's larger market teams from having an unfair advantage because it wants it's larger market teams to do well. That's no secret but you'll never get anyone from the league office to say it on record.

Take a look at the eight teams who have won the last 31 championships and where they rank in terms of television market size, according to RabbitEars.info:

• Los Angeles (2)
• Chicago (3)
• Philadelphia (5)
• Boston (8)
• Miami (9)
• Detroit (10)
• Houston (11)
• San Antonio (28)

San Antonio is the exception to the rule—the lone team from outside the top-11 in size. It should come as no surprise that those teams who benefit from increased market size would be more likely to retain their own players and pursue free agents.

According to Berger, the owners have already agreed on the framework for an enhanced revenue sharing model that would help funnel revenue from the larger market teams to the smaller ones.

That should come as good news to the players because it will enhance the likelihood of teams retaining their own free agents, as well as increase the number of potential suitors.

The details of that framework have yet to be announced, but if the owners have already agreed to it then that's a good thing as far as avoiding a work stoppage is concerned.

Eliminate Loopholes

For the sake of the fans, the NBA needs to eliminate a couple of loopholes currently being used to circumvent the salary cap.

The Lakers and Mavericks were able to pull off trades for Pau Gasol and Jason Kidd by re-signing semi-retired free agents who they hadn't renounced and who hadn't officially retired.

While both teams deserve credit for being creative, the NBA should figure something out to prevent the establishment of dangerous precedents that ruin fair competition. The last thing fans want is to witness more questionable activity in their already paranoid minds.

The same goes for teams who trade players away, watch them receive buy-outs from their new teams, only to return to their old teams after sitting out 30 days.

A player who is traded should not be allowed to return to his old team until the conclusion of that season.

The NBA should also look into putting an end to it's unofficial second free agency period that happens every March. This is the time when veterans on bad teams are waived so they can sign on with contenders.

Tweaking the Minimum Age Requirement

This is a touchy subject since the majority of fans believe that a kid who is old enough to serve his country in times of war should have the right to make a living straight out of high school.

The NBA instituted a requirement that all potential draft picks must be either 19 years old or one year removed from graduating high school.

Due to the current state of the economy, most teams will only carry the minimum of 13 players on their rosters next season—thus eliminating approximately 50 jobs from last season. Most of those left without jobs will be veterans nearing the end of their careers and second-round draft picks on non-guaranteed contracts.

It's long been believed that the NBA would like to increase the minimum age requirement to 20, and this might be their only chance to do so. The players might not have a problem with it since it would increase the likelihood that those veteran cast-offs get one more year to make money before they retire, whereas a 20 year old has ample time with which to establish himself and make a living.

The NBA is second only to the NFL in terms of fair competition. The rules in place are designed to give teams the advantage in re-signing their own free agents and discourage a constant carousel of player movement.

Derek Fisher has gone on record saying that the players are fully aware that they'll have to give something back to the owners with the next CBA. What he wants to make sure is that rules are put in place so that when the economy turns itself around the players benefit as well.

The fact that both sides are entering into negotiations with an understanding of how the fans feel and the catastrophic consequences of a work stoppage is a great starting point.

We can only hope that things continue to go as smoothly.