01.21.11
by

Caltrain faces $30 million deficit, huge cuts

Silicon Valley Leadership Group may be full-throated in their support of a San Jose ballpark, but their key issue this year appears to be saving Caltrain. The transit agency is dealing with a $30 million deficit in the next fiscal year’s budget. As expected, the remedy comes in the form of service cutbacks. Service would be eliminated on weekends and middays on weekdays. Also gone would be service to Gilroy and dedicated Giants service.

For several years, Caltrain has been running special trains going to AT&T Park for day games, and two extra trains coming back south after every game (day or night). Around 5% of fans take Caltrain every home date, so a midseason dropoff in service, whether it’s the special trains or weekend service in general, is going to be extremely jarring. Public transit usage for the ballpark is at around 34-41% currently, a steady rise over the last decade.

Today, SVLG had the first of many “summits” to figure out how to preserve service. This one was held on the Stanford campus. Next weekend (1/29), a public session will be held in San Carlos at samTrans headquarters. Much of the shortfall comes from lower contributions by the three member transit agencies that make up the Caltrain Joint Powers Authority: SCVTA, samTrans, and Muni. Caltrain can always raise fares, but even that will only go so far.

I’ll be at the session next Saturday, and if worse comes to worse this summer, I’ll probably head out to China Basin to see how bad things get. Fans won’t be expected to stay away, instead they’ll drive.

01.21.11
by

Quick visual study in arena conversions

Last weekend HP Pavilion scheduled one of its occasional day-night event doubleheaders. The Harlem Globetrotters were in town for a 1 PM matinee, followed up by a 7:30 PM Sharks-Blues matchup. The Sharks/SVSE took a time-lapse video of the changeover.

The Globetrotters don’t attract sellout crowds, yet they routinely play in some of the largest, most modern arenas. HP Pavilion’s main tenant is a hockey team, so any arena floor or seating changes have to be done with preserving the rink in mind. In the Globetrotters’ case, there’s no need to pull out the special basketball risers that would be used for a NCAA hoops regional or NBA game. Instead, they use a set of low-rise risers while the end seats at the hockey boards aren’t used. When the big hoops games come, the end seats are retracted and replaced by a different set of risers. The change seen above requires a little less labor, so no big deal. If you tried to sit along the hockey boards at the ends, your view of the court would be obstructed.

At American Airlines Center in Dallas, the end seats are in a dual-rise system which allows for maximum flexibility. The risers are well-pitched for hockey games, but they convert into a more gradual pitch for basketball. The chief benefit of this arrangement is that none of the end basketball seats are on the floor – except for the ones closest to the court. Just about every new dual-sport arena has something like this in place. This one in Dallas or Portland’s Rose Garden or the Verizon Center in DC are perhaps the most extreme.

For perhaps the worst example of how to do this, you don’t need to go much farther than everyone’s favorite whipping boy, Power Balance Pavilion ARCO Arena. There, the floor’s bizarrely unique configuration has its sideline seats retract to create extra floor space. By doing this, all ice shows or hockey games have to played on transversely mounted ice. Since a basketball team is the chief tenant, ice is not a permanent floor feature, so the ice brought in from containers in sheet form and mounted much the same way a floor would.

There may actually be a way to pull this off in a more modern arena with the right technology. Unfortunately, ARCO’s not getting any of that stuff.

01.20.11
by

Radio Musical Chairs

No news on KTRB yet. Sorry.

There is other news on sports-related radio. South Bay rock station KUFX-FM (er, KFOX 98.5) was sold to industry giant Entercom for $9 million. The station was held in a trust as Clear Channel had to divest itself of three stations after it made acquisitions of its own (FCC rules). This apparently set off a chain of events which led to USF-owned classical station KUSF being sold to a nonprofit controlled by USC. Yes, that USC. They also bought KDFC and moved the station to 89.9 and 90.3, eliminating KUSF from the airwaves in the process. The 102.1 slot will serve for now as simulcast for KUFX.

Simulcasting on 102.1 will definitely help KUFX because of the new station’s 33,000 watt signal from San Francisco. Coupled with the much weaker 10,000 watt San Jose station, Bay Area coverage should be good. However, there is a question as to how much KUFX’s South Bay identity will be lost in the process since the studio will move from San Jose to San Francisco. The Sharks reportedly have a five-year broadcast deal which ends with the 2014-15 NHL season, but we A’s fans are well accustomed to long-term agreements not being worth the paper they’re printed on. Stations change formats on a whim, though KUFX’s typical 4.5+ rating in the South Bay is good reason for things not to change much.

If KUFX does a format change or streamlines and drops the Sharks at some point, here’s to hoping that an A’s-owned KTRB provides a soft landing spot. December ratings are out, and KTRB’s status in receivership limbo has not helped. Ratings below with number of households in parentheses.

  • San Francisco: October – 0.3 (114,100), November – 0.1 (59,000), December – 0.1 (55,300)
  • San Jose: October – 0.2 (26,600), November – 0.1 (15,800), December – 0.1 (11,000)

Buy that station!!! Please???

01.19.11
by

Boras chimes in on Oakland/San Jose

We can now add über-agent Scott Boras to the list of people who hate Oakland, along Lew Wolff, John Fisher, Steve Schott, Ken Hofmann, Guy Saperstein, and just about everyone else in league with A’s ownership over the past 15 years. Ken Rosenthal reports that Boras, well, his words speak for themselves.

“The idea that we’re here, sitting on our hands and not letting this franchise get going is detrimental to the game,” says Boras, who grew up in Elk Grove, Calif., near Sacramento.

“A few franchises need to be evaluated and examined. Oakland can immediately improve and become a success if moved to San Jose. You would then have two well-run and successful franchises in the Bay Area.”

Now, let’s not read anything more into this than Boras’ own self-interest. I doubt he’s out there, rubbing his hands, actively conspiring to destroy Oakland. I doubt he cares for either Oakland or San Jose. What he wants is the ability to have one more suitor who could offer a nice, fat, nine-figure contract, whereby Boras gets his cut. That’s it.

It’s interesting that Boras’ comments were so pointed, when Joe Stiglich reported over the weekend that he talked to two unnamed agents who felt that the Coliseum’s condition being a factor in signing free agents was overblown. Instead free agents were turned off by the organization’s lack of commitment to winning. We’ll see how that equation changes this season and next.

The rest of Rosenthal’s article pretty much rehashes the current situation, though he editorializes quite strongly in favor of San Jose.

The three other AL West clubs — the Rangers, Angels and Mariners — play in terrific markets with terrific parks. The proposed 32,000-seat stadium in San Jose would be the smallest in the majors. But the A’s average home attendance would almost double if they filled the park, and premium seating and luxury suites would provide additional revenue.

It’s time. It’s past time.

“In the end, this is hurting baseball,” Boras says. “It’s depriving baseball players and baseball fans of a successful franchise. That’s wrong. We need to correct that.”

The solution is within reach.

Somewhere, the commissioner is twiddling his thumbs.

(Thanks gojohn10 for the link.)

01.19.11
by

SJ RDA Board Special Meeting – Decision coming Tuesday

Update 1/20 12:15 AM – Governor Brown spoke at League of California Cities event, indicating that the recent moves by cities and RDAs to protect and assign redevelopment funds may be illegal.

Brown characterized the difficulty the state faces this way:

“I have to tell you, none of the choices are easy,” Brown said at a hotel across from the Capitol. “We haven’t got the votes on the budget. And you might win on redevelopment.

“But then we take something else away. And then the wheels come off. We don’t know exactly how this is all going to unfold,” the new Democratic governor said. He invited local officials to suggest alternatives.

Wonder if Brown will listen to multiple voices calling for oil severance (drilling) fees.

San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency Board (the City Council/Mayor) have pushed the big item – how to protect RDA funds – out to next Tuesday (1/25). A new co-op agreement to be written by the City Attorney should be available by then, and they will be able to vote on how RDA responsibilities will continue.

RDA head Harry Mavrogenes hinted that the co-op agreement would allow all existing and under contract projects under the control of the RDA would be transferred to the City. He didn’t say anything beyond that. I take that to mean that San Jose will take a page out of Los Angeles’ book and allow for the creation for a successor agency (which Gov. Brown has said would be allowed).

Mayor Reed mentioned that he and the other mayors of the 10 largest cities in the state would meet with Brown on January 26. Whether this means they’d be throwing their weight around or groveling isn’t clear. One person in the crowd mentioned that the City’s lobbyist in the Capitol has been keeping tabs on whether any new legislation that would affect RDAs is in motion. So far no dice, but anything could happen at any time after this week. Whatever bill the legislature and the governor approve could stop RDA activities immediately, it could stop things retroactive to a specific date. They’re that scared. Reed laid out the City’s position:

(The state) Taking money this year and promising to give it back next year is one of the oldest tricks in the budget gimmick book. And I can’t put any faith that if they take redevelopment funds that we’ll ever get a nickel of it back, that Santa Clara County will ever see a nickel of it back, because the legislature doesn’t have a great track record of doing that even though they have promised it.

The upshot is that Tuesday is the day of reckoning and will be followed by the regular City Council hearing to approve the new co-op agreement. So far I so no dissension among the ranks, leading me to believe that it’ll be approved. Tuesday also happens to be the date of the Good Neighbor session, so the Council Chambers should be full of RDA “supporters” and detractors.

As far as the ballpark goes, the RDA and/or City would have to be under contract with the A’s really really soon to be able to escape the raid. As much as the cities are talking about taking legal action to stop the raids, getting an injunction is not exactly a viable short or long term strategy, so they can’t assume that they’ll be able to get a lengthy enough delay to complete certain projects. They need to plan for several years from now.

I wonder how often Selig is getting calls from Wolff about this. Selig is not known for reacting well under pressure.

01.18.11
by

Redevelopment Agencies hit DEFCON-1

Last week, Los Angeles took steps to protect nearly $1 Billion in RDA funds from the state. Now it’s everyone else’s turn. Redevelopment agencies all over California are scrambling to come up with strategies to keep themselves intact or insulate themselves from the inevitable raid or shutdown. In Escondido, the RDA is debating whether or not to raise bonds for its $50 million ballpark project early. The Merc’s John Woolfork reports that tomorrow, San Jose has scheduled an emergency meeting of its RDA to figure out its next steps. There’s only one major agenda item:

1.1 In response to the Governor’s proposed State budget package and proposals for FY 2011-12, which include recommending the elimination of redevelopment agencies “to realign the delivery of state services to counties and local governments” and eliminate a projected State deficit of $25.4 billion the City Manager and Agency Executive Director recommend the following actions intended to provide flexibility to fund the Agency’s existing debt obligation and to reaffirm the Agency’s obligations and appropriation of funding for its previously approved FY 2010-11 Operating Budget, its Capital Improvement Plan and other contractual obligations.

Recommendation:

(a) City Council and Agency Board by motion, makes a good faith, reasonable determination by a 2/3 vote of the body that an issue has arisen that must be resolved in less than 4 days. (8 votes required)

(b) Approval of a Cooperation Agreement between the City of San Jose and the San Jose Redevelopment Agency relating to funding certain Redevelopment Agency capital improvements, public improvements and obligations located within currently designated redevelopment project areas.

(c) Adoption of resolutions by the Agency Board, the San Jose Financing Authority Board and the City Council authorizing the Agency Executive Director, the City Manager, the Executive Director of the Financing Authority and the Housing Department Director to negotiate and execute agreements necessary to protect and secure existing obligations and to acquire, construct, develop and implement projects specified in the Agency and City’s approved capital improvement plan and City’s 5 year affordable housing plan as specified herein.

(d) Adoption of a resolution by the City Council making certain findings and determinations as may be necessary.

(e) Authorize the Director of Housing to negotiate and execute agreements in the amount of $1.43 million of Low- and Moderate-Income Housing funds (“20% funds”) to Eden Housing or its affiliate for the Ford & Monterey Special Needs Housing Project (“Project”) in order to meet federal Stimulus (“NSP2”) timeframes; and make a finding that the use of 20% Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Funds outside a redevelopment project area for the affordable housing to be provided by the Project and its Phase II benefits the Agency’s redevelopment project areas.

The RDA Board/City Council is giving themselves until next week to figure all of this stuff out. This includes:

  • $180 million in annual tax increment revenue, which could go away in a few months
  • $54 million from additional sources for the next two fiscal years
  • $200 million in land assets, not including the five properties being sold to cover the remaining Diridon ballpark site acquisition
  • $58 million in cash available at the moment
  • $58 million in planned capital expenditures
  • $200 million in annual debt service
  • $53 million in additional payments and operating costs for this year and the next two fiscal years

I’ll be at the meeting, which is scheduled for 3:30 4 PM at City Hall Council Chambers. It should be messy. I’ll have the audio recorder handy.

Also from Woolfork’s article (via the Argus’ Matthew Artz): Fremont approved $140 million in redevelopment bonds, though with so many cities looking to raise money and the TIF sources being threatened, there’s a legitimate question as to who will buy them with all of the uncertainty.

01.18.11
by

Anschutz makes demands for LA NFL stadium

The head of AEG has a big checkbook. With that comes the ability to dictate terms. As reported by the Los Angeles Business Journal, Phil Anschutz has laid out the conditions needed for him to drop some serious coin on the downtown, retractable roof stadium.

  • Agreements with various corporations for naming rights and other sponsorships that would bring in tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue.
  • A commitment from Los Angeles city officials for speedy approvals and $350 million in bonds to replace the West Hall of the city-owned Los Angeles Convention Center that would be torn down to make way for the stadium.
  • A commitment from an NFL team to move to Los Angeles.
  • A commitment from the NFL itself to approve an L.A. team.

Now that the future of redevelopment is uncertain, it would appear that the second item would be the toughest nut to crack. That $350 million would be paid off by a ticket surcharge, which translates to a RDA funding and a quasi-governmental stadium authority handling the bonds. The time crunch will make things really difficult, but knowing LA politics, I wouldn’t stack up all of my chips against it.

01.18.11
by

CBA Talk: MLB’s detente becomes entente

August 30, 2002. The A’s were coming off an off-day, a well-deserved rest after extending The Streak to 15 games. Even with the delirium we all felt about the on-field stuff, a dark cloud loomed on the horizon. The league and union were at the latter’s deadline to ratify a new CBA, otherwise a strike was certain. The most controversial bone of contention was the possibility that MLB could contract two teams. The four candidates most cited were the Expos, Marlins, Twins and A’s. None had stadium deals in the near future. All four of the teams’ owners involved were considered cheap at best, criminally awful at worst. Coincidentally, the Twins were in town for a weekend series with the A’s, both teams in playoff contention. I was terribly distracted by the labor situation, and that combined with it being Friday made for one of the more unproductive workdays on record. I spent a good deal of time hanging out at friends’ cubicles, listening to the radio and checking ESPN.com and a new service called Google News every couple of minutes for updates. We learned in the afternoon that after some nonstop negotiation, a new agreement was reached. Later we would find out that contraction would be off the table until at least 2007.

Fast forward eight years, and the landscape is quite different. The Expos are no more, as Bud Selig prepared an elaborate dog-and-pony show to attract cities to bid for the ‘Spos, only to drive up the price for DC interests while swindling the District out of $611 million for a new ballpark. The Twins eventually got their ballpark, somehow by raising sales taxes without requiring a referendum. The Marlins also tricked Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami into funding two-thirds of their new digs. Here we are, in 2011, and the biggest reason the A’s don’t have a new stadium is that there’s no way we’d go for a publicly funded one. C’est la vie.

Anyway, it would be only slightly hyperbolic to characterize the relationship between MLB and MLBPA as marital bliss. Other than squabbling over fines and suspensions and changes to the drug policy, it’s been smooth sailing. Meanwhile, the other leagues have dug trenches and donned armor for their labor battles, and there’s no telling how or when some of them will end. So what’s the secret behind the MLB’s success?

Four years ago, I offhandedly suggested that the players would be helped if they agreed to a salary cap and floor implementation in the salary/payroll structure. By doing this they could guarantee a higher percentage of revenue than what they have gotten historically. Over time, it could also lead to greater parity if executed correctly. They would be more in line with their counterparts in the other leagues. Sounded good at the time, right?

Silly me. The players don’t want that kind of nonsense. The top 32 free agents this offseason signed a combined $1 Billion in new contracts! They’re perfectly happy where they are for the most part. The biggest upcoming bargaining item has nothing to do with established players and everything to do with amateurs and draftees. Other money-related items, such as increasing the minimum salary or changing service time requirements, are only modifications of the current system, not wholesale changes. Last week, the owners meetings had the CBA as its #1 agenda item. All the talk coming out of it was about new replay rules and the possible inclusion of an extra wild card playoff team. It’s almost eerie how little financial matters are playing into this. So what’s Bud’s secret?

The big key to this unnatural harmony is the lack of a set percentage of revenue given to the players. The other three leagues have defined guarantees and/or limits for players, ranging from 50-60%. Setting that number is like opening Pandora’s Box. It automatically creates a new tug-of-war between management and labor, an arbitrary way by which they can measure themselves. In the modern or expansion era, there have always been pendulum swings between the two sides, and victories could be measured by rights gained or lost. Now everything is ultra-quantitative, which is great for people like me who like to count the numbers, but not so great in terms of properly assessing the health of a sport. Is there a way to determine whether players getting 52% or 56% of a league’s revenues make the quality of play proportionally better or worse? Not really. With no set percentage, there’s no tension, even though guys like me will occasionally question the players’ wisdom in getting less when they could get more in theory.

There’s also one curious thing I’ve noticed about the Big Four’s CBA documents – their length. The NFL’s CBA is 361 pages long. The NHL’s is 472 pages including exhibits while the NBA’s is 425 pages excluding exhibits. MLB? Only 241 pages. There’s also the Major League Constitution, but it is also fairly brief at only 23 pages. I have no interest in combing through 1200 pages of legalese to pinpoint all of the differences, but I’m guessing that MLB’s lack of language regarding salary caps and floors helps a lot. It’s telling that the longest section in the entire CBA, at 22 pages, is titled Article XXIII – Competitive Balance Tax. This relatively recent addition to the document deals with the luxury tax, a feature of the CBA that usually only applies to 2-4 teams each season, one of them guaranteed to be the Yankees. Less rules, less to negotiate. Perhaps this is due to the change-averse way MLB has operated.

Then what are they negotiating? Mostly it’s competition-related stuff, which is great because all fans can have an opinion without feeling dirty. Take replay, for instance. Currently, the system is much like the NHL’s video replay system in that it’s controlled by the league office and it can only be used for scoring plays. MLB restricts this further by only using instant replay for home run calls, not other plays on the field such as missed tags or a runner missing the plate/base. MLB also gives the umpiring crew the final say instead of a remote replay judge. The NBA does the same thing for buzzer-beating shots or three-pointers where a guy may be on the line. Football lacks a consensus. College football has replay possible for every play by the booth, except for penalties. The NFL has the dual-challenge system, which is replaced by booth review in the last two minutes of every half. Still, the referee has the final say. It’s all a hodgepodge of different implementations, which makes little sense. College football has somehow managed to incorporate a more thorough system than all other sports without noticeably slowing down the game. Surely there’s a way to make this work in baseball.

Drug policy is not likely to change right away, as MLB only started its fantasy unicorn HGH blood test in the minors last summer. MLB has had the latitude to make changes in the middle of the agreement when it proved politically expedient, so if the heat is turned up for some reason they may react in kind. Since baseball is trending more pitcher friendly these days, my guess is that Bud will get back to us at some point. Whenever.

The idea of adding wild cards is interesting, though it is too complex to add to the 2011 season. A popular option seems to be a play-in game for two wild card teams, with the loser going home. I personally don’t mind expansion as long as it doesn’t add more than 3 days to the postseason schedule while keeping the regular season intact.

So-called “hard slotting” of the draft will be up for debate. It’s a good opportunity for MLBPA to gain a concession in exchange for agreeing to this rookie cap. Fundamentally, the big difference between MLB/NFL and NBA/NHL is who determines the numbers. In the end, who’d you rather have figure this out – the players and league by enshrining it in a document, or a Scott Boras-type who has the power to dictate the figures in the weeks leading up to the draft?

If MLBPA accepts hard slotting, I figure they’ll be able to keep Super 2 status, even though teams are bound to abuse the system by repeatedly holding back players to keep them from earning service time. On this point, it’s not worth fighting too much since it’s really a pyrrhic victory with the way it’s used. I haven’t heard anything about the players trying to shorten the six-year period covered by the reserve clause to five years. Not much to argue about right now.

Negotiations for the next CBA could begin as early as this spring, now that MLB is getting its ducks in a row. This time around is not expected to be much different than last time, with bitterness and acrimony missing from the talks. That’s great, because I’d rather have Bud and his minions figure out the A’s stadium situation once and for all. Help a brother out, Bud.

P.S.: AN readers who may be interested in putting this into a fanpost have my express permission to do so – the entire post – with attribution.

01.17.11
by

CBA Talk: The NBA’s road to hell is paved with good intentions

It’s generally not well-known that the NBA was the first major pro sport to institute a salary cap. The modern form of it came in 1984, in the midst of the great Celtics-Lakers rivalry and the first season of Michael Jordan. The cap has served David Stern’s league well, controlling costs while incrementally making players richer than their counterparts in the other pro sports (to be fair, they play more than their counterparts as well). Even with a lockout that bit off a third of the 1998-99 season and the retirement of Jordan, the league’s recovery was quick and impressive. As the current season hits the midpoint, both sides are steeling themselves for another protracted battle. This time, it might last a while though it doesn’t have to.

Of the three leagues to have salary caps (NHL, NFL, NBA), the NBA is the only one to have what’s called a soft cap. The hard cap concept is simple – a team’s payroll can’t go over the limit, period. The soft cap allows teams to go over the prescribed limit ($58 million or so) to sign its own free agents for basically as much as they want. There’s also a luxury tax threshold (~$70 million) which creates a dollar-for-dollar penalty for every team whose payroll is above the threshold. Teams can also sign other teams’ free agents while over the cap, though they are restrictions in terms of what they can offer. What was initially designed as a way for teams to keep their franchise cornerstones in place has turned into an ugly monster in which most players are grossly overpaid and teams end up trading players more to get rid of contracts than to attain talent.

Exceptions were created to help teams keep their own players, which would in turn boost competition in the league. Over the past decade or so, the exact opposite has happened. One team has won five championships, another has three, and the others are perennial contenders, leaving most of the rest of league as also-rans. With a relatively short roster and the great impact a single player can have on a franchise, the results are somewhat understandable. What doesn’t make sense is the incredible number of players who get franchise-type money who are clearly best as second or third bananas, guys who really can’t carry teams.

Per Larry Coon’s NBA Salary Cap FAQ, here’s a list of the exceptions teams can use to sign free agents:

  • Larry Bird – Famously misnamed because the Celtics supposedly used it to sign their superstar (not really). Allows teams to sign their own veteran free agents (three years or more on the same team) for any amount up to the max salary. Plenty of players are worthy of the coin, such as Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan. For every success story, there are at least two huge failures such as Gilbert Arenas, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady and Andrei Kirilenko.
  • Early Bird (75% raise) and Non-Bird (20% raise) – Players who have been with their teams for two years can sign for a set percentage above their previous salary. These are actually pretty smart exception, though sometimes they act as preludes to big money deals via the Larry Bird exception.
  • Midlevel – Perhaps the most contentious part of the current CBA, this exception allows teams to sign one player every year at the league’s average salary ($5-6 million). This tool has been severely abused and plenty of marginal players have received 5 year, $30 million contracts as a result. Particularly poor examples of these contracts include Vladimir Radmanovic, Brian “The Custodian” Cardinal, Jerome James, and Dan Gadzuric. Not surprisingly, two of the guys I just named are on the Warriors and another was once a Warrior. The exception is also important because in its current form, it’s the maximum teams who are over the cap can offer to other teams’ free agents. The Warriors suffered in the previous CBA when this wasn’t spelled out when they lost Gilbert Arenas to the Wizards, though in hindsight this might not have been such a bad thing. The league wants to eliminate or at least significantly curtail the use of the midlevel, while the players union loves it. Expect it to be available on a much more limited basis, like the next exception.
  • Bi-Annual – Located somewhere between the midlevel and the veterans’ minimum salary, the BAE allows teams to pull in quality bench players for relatively cheap (~$2 million). As the naming suggests, it is only available every other year.
  • Minimum – Allows teams to sign veterans or rookies for minimum scale. Also allows each signee to count only a certain amount against the cap, which could reduce luxury tax payments.

There are also exceptions such as the Traded Player Exception, in which a team receives what is essentially a voucher if the value of the players they send away in a trade is more than the amount they take in. All of these exceptions work against the league in that they provide no downward pressure on salaries. And that’s bad for a league that doesn’t have enough jobs to create serious competition among players for those jobs. When you look at the number of exceptions that can be used, it’s clear that a team can sign half of their roster even if they are already over the cap. It’s this model that has allowed some serious financial mismanagement among many teams. Of course, it’s easy to say that owners and GM’s don’t have to use these exceptions, but that runs counter to the notion of attempting to compete every year. It’s this desire to compete that pushes teams to put themselves in bad financial positions with contracts, and when those contracts don’t pan out as results on the court, salary dumps for pennies on the dollar.

To combat this, the NBA is trying to shorten maximum contract lengths from six years to five. Previously they had succeeded in reducing them from seven years to six. They’re also looking to reduce the guaranteed percentage the players get as part of the CBA, which currently stands at 57% – the highest of the major four pro sports. While I doubt they can get to 50% as the NFL has done, they could bump it down a few percentage points, which could mean $100 million or more in reduced free agent money every year. If they eliminate some of those exceptions or restrict their usage to once every 2-3 years, money could be spent more wisely and strategically. The owners are also talking about taking additional measures:

Unfortunately for the players, they have little leverage. Some of them could choose to play in Europe for a year, but that’s a hollow threat and wasn’t employed much during the last lockout. In the end, perhaps the biggest thing that the players could allow is the reuse of the amnesty clause, last used in 2005 after the current CBA was ratified. Also known as the Allan Houston rule, the clause allowed teams to get rid of certain highly-paid, injury-ridden players. While the players were still paid and they counted against the cap, they would not count against the luxury tax threshold, which could save teams somewhere in the nine figures if used appropriately. The clause could even be expanded to ensure that those contracts don’t count against the cap, though that’s a much harder sell. IMHO the amnesty clause should be in every NBA CBA going forward, just as a way to clean up garbage contracts on a once-per-CBA basis.

Posturing between management and labor started before the season started, and so far things don’t look good. It’s quite possible that just like the NFL, there will be some kind of work stoppage for the NBA next fall. Unlike the NFL, there are several ways to achieve the better cost certainty that Stern and the owners want to achieve. It’s really just a matter of how greedy they want to get about it.

01.16.11
by

The Audacity of Orange

I’ve tried to avoid it. You know you have. But it’s there and it has to be addressed.

The Giants have spent much of the offseason showing off their newly earned World Series trophy. Two weeks ago it was at the Silicon Valley International Car Show. It’s been all over the Bay for fans to come up and take pictures with it. As A’s fans we just have to grin and bear it. The Giants have earned the right, and parading around with the trophy is a smart, smart move.

Now they might have taken it too far by hooking up with Showtime for a reality series, scheduled to air this summer. They’ll be mimicking HBO’s Hard Knocks and 24/7 series, in which cameras follow a single team or event throughout training camp. Production has already started on the series, which will chronicle the team’s attempt to repeat from hot stove and spring training to the dog days of August and the pennant chase.

24/7 has worked for years as a promotional tool in part because of the nature of boxing. With two combatants, it’s easy to pick sides among the different camps, and the zero sum result of a boxing match wraps things up neatly. The action within (training, sparring) always films great. HBO has gotten so good at promoting and filming fight action that the producers of The Fighter chose to have HBO Sports film the fight scenes. In the last year, HBO also extended 24/7 to non-boxing events such NHL’s Winter Classic and NASCAR driver Jimmie Johnson’ preparation for the Daytona 500.

Covering a team throughout a season, as MLB/Showtime are doing with the Giants, is much different. Not only do you have to worry about the level of distraction that comes with cameras following players and coaches around day and night, there’s also the worry about the level of drama. The Giants should be competitive in the NL West and may even be leading by the time the first episode airs, given that the Rockies present the only real competition for them at this point. The serial nature of the baseball season should provide plenty of footage, but is it going to be any good? Will they be reduced to off-field looks at how unique Brian Wilson and Tim Lincecum are?

If there’s something that the Giants should be worried about, it’s the filming of a meltdown. As much as the Giants’ marketing machine is building up the team, they are absolutely ripe for a fall. As “compelling” as the worst MTV reality show is when a trainwreck occurs, the Giants could be setting themselves up for weekly lampooning throughout the summer. Chemistry is fragile and a constant distraction won’t help maintain it. A meltdown not something I’d wish upon fans of any team. When a team gets filmed in this manner things haven’t turned out all that well. Hard Knocks has been around for 6 seasons. None of the teams profiled won the Super Bowl following the show’s airing (The Jets may find this out today next week).

Good luck with your reality experiment, Giants. You’re gonna need it.