PDA

View Full Version : Is the NBA salary structure corrupt?



FarOutIos
05-23-2010, 08:05 AM
I was thinking about the big name talent on all the major competitors in the playoffs, and decided to look at the salaries of the NBA teams this year.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

This list shows that the top teams in the NBA coincidentally have the highest salaries. (except for the knicks) Now this might seem like a logical connection, as the best teams would hence have the best players.

But, here is my dilemma... from wikipedia, we find that "The 2009-10 salary cap has been set at $57.7 million"

If this is true, then how does a team like the Lakers go $34 million OVER the salary cap?

Is this just a good use of loopholes? Or are transactions that should not be approved by the NBA because of their cap consequences? In other words, is the NBA letting teams get away with going over the cap?

If anyone can further clarify the issue, please do.

Niro
05-23-2010, 08:18 AM
i can add a little bit

1. Bird Rights ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Salary_Cap#Larry_Bird_exception
for example thats why LA could resign kobe for a max while beeing over the cap ;)

2. Contracts which get more expensive for the team for example the max contract starts at 16 million and ends at max 25 million in the 6 year.

3. i think rfa are one way too...so that a team can match any offer another team makes for that player

4. Rookies (you can sign them while beeing over the cap)

5. MLE any team can sign a player for the mid level exeption (dont how how mouch it is like 5-7 mil i guess)

idk if there are more ways to get over the cap so feel free to add

OA SLAY
05-23-2010, 08:26 AM
Yes! So are the refs, and David Stern himself:mad:

Sly Guy
05-23-2010, 08:52 AM
it's a soft cap so it still favors teams that are willing to shell out for the most talent. But if you look at the playoff teams, a substantial number of them are in the lower half of total salary.

But there are a lot of other problems with the current CBA. Salary matching for instance. Bad contracts should be a handicap, not a potentially valuable trading asset. What kind of backwards economic model rewards crappy decision making of values the s**t of the league? com'on.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
05-23-2010, 08:55 AM
2 words:soft cap

close thread

Montana_Rob
05-23-2010, 09:01 AM
teams over the cap pay a luxury tax to the NBA according to how much over they are

FarOutIos
05-23-2010, 09:08 AM
it's a soft cap so it still favors teams that are willing to shell out for the most talent. But if you look at the playoff teams, a substantial number of them are in the lower half of total salary.

But there are a lot of other problems with the current CBA. Salary matching for instance. Bad contracts should be a handicap, not a potentially valuable trading asset. What kind of backwards economic model rewards crappy decision making of values the s**t of the league? com'on.

Huh? Looks to me like the team salary list is a great indicator of playoff success. Look at Boston and LA, the 2 teams likely to meet in the finals. They were 1 and 3 on the salary list.

In fact, if we take the top 5 teams from each conference as indicated by final season record, 8 of those teams were in the top 10 salary list. With Miami, which was the 5th best record in the East, having the 11th highest NBA salary. If you throw out the Hawks as an exception, then there appears to be a direct correlation.

In fact, if you go about it the opposite way, and throw out the Knicks as the exception (a good rule generally), then teams with the top 10 salaries (excluding the knicks) ended up with almost all of the top records of their conference. The Spurs didn't fare great in the regular season, but as their post season shows, they were a better team than record shows. Probably because of Parker's injury.

Sly Guy
05-23-2010, 09:20 AM
Huh? Looks to me like the team salary list is a great indicator of playoff success. Look at Boston and LA, the 2 teams likely to meet in the finals. They were 1 and 3 on the salary list.

In fact, if we take the top 5 teams from each conference as indicated by final season record, 8 of those teams were in the top 10 salary list. With Miami, which was the 5th best record in the East, having the 11th highest NBA salary. If you throw out the Hawks as an exception, then there appears to be a direct correlation.

In fact, if you go about it the opposite way, and throw out the Knicks as the exception (a good rule generally), then teams with the top 10 salaries (excluding the knicks) ended up with almost all of the top records of their conference. The Spurs didn't fare great in the regular season, but as their post season shows, they were a better team than record shows. Probably because of Parker's injury.

I'm just making note that charlotte, milwaulkee, atlanta, an portland are all well below the league average and were in the playoffs. So it is possible to do.

Kakaroach
05-23-2010, 09:39 AM
i can add a little bit

1. Bird Rights ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Salary_Cap#Larry_Bird_exception
for example thats why LA could resign kobe for a max while beeing over the cap ;)

2. Contracts which get more expensive for the team for example the max contract starts at 16 million and end at max 25 million in the 6 year.

3. i think rfa are one way too...so that a team can match any offer another team makes for that player

4. Rookies (you can sign them while beeing over the cap)

5. MLE any team can sign a player for the mid level exeption (dont how how mouch it is like 5-7 mil i guess)

idk if there are more ways to get over the cap so feel free to add Yep, you've hit it right on the head. When signing players with bird rights teams can go over their cap as well as using their 5 million MLE clause.

The NBA salary cap may be 34 million but the luxury tax is like 57 million or so. The luxury tax pretty much means for every dollar you go over-board you have to pay an extra dollar as well. But remember, that team still can't sign free agents cuz their over the cap.

Hopefully that cleared up the subject a little.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
05-23-2010, 09:45 AM
Yep, you've hit it right on the head. When signing players with bird rights teams can go over their cap as well as using their 5 million MLE clause.

The NBA salary cap may be 34 million but the luxury tax is like 57 million or so. The luxury tax pretty much means for every dollar you go over-board you have to pay an extra dollar as well. But remember, that team still can't sign free agents cuz their over the cap.

Hopefully that cleared up the subject a little.

those numbers should be 58 and 70

AntiG
05-23-2010, 10:00 AM
The main reason is, just like most other sports, marquee players want to play for better run teams usually in bigger markets. Having a soft cap supplements this issue. Its not really problem with being "corrupt," its really more that there are too many teams in the NBA compared to the amount of top talents.

Lo Porto
05-23-2010, 10:26 AM
The system is flawed, and they'll fix the problems in the new CBA next summer. Let's just hope we avoid a lockout. Instead of complaining about the current flawed system, why don't we throw ideas out that we'd like to see. I'd love:

1. No team should ever be able to spend more than $10 million over the luxury tax limit.
2. Teams should have to "franchise" players to keep a player when they are already over the luxury.
3. If a team trades a player, they can't reacquire that player at all in that season.
4. Max concracts should be lowered. If the cap is $60 million, how can you pay one player $20+?
5. For contracts 4 years or longer, the last year of the contract should be non-guaranteed.

Those are just a few of the ideas I have...

PrettyBoyJ
05-23-2010, 10:29 AM
I'm lookin at some of these players contract and I never knew so many washed up players where makin so much money and a lot of teams are paying the dividends for their poor performance

drobe86
05-23-2010, 10:32 AM
I'm just making note that charlotte, milwaulkee, atlanta, an portland are all well below the league average and were in the playoffs. So it is possible to do.


Its possible to get to the Playoffs yes, but Contend ummmm. NO.

Lo Porto
05-23-2010, 10:38 AM
Based on my ideas, the Lakers would have been able to keep Odom OR sign Artest unless they traded somebody to open the space. Also, the Celtics wouldn't have been able to add Rasheed Wallace.

Keeping a firm line at $10 above the luxury will keep teams from keeping or adding too much talent.

Montana_Rob
05-23-2010, 10:44 AM
Its possible to get to the Playoffs yes, but Contend ummmm. NO.

without all the injuries to Portland I think they could have contended. They have the lowest payroll

nbafan63
05-23-2010, 07:53 PM
Based on my ideas, the Lakers would have been able to keep Odom OR sign Artest unless they traded somebody to open the space. Also, the Celtics wouldn't have been able to add Rasheed Wallace.

Keeping a firm line at $10 above the luxury will keep teams from keeping or adding too much talent.


The Lakers let go of Ariza to aquire Artest. All they did was resign Odom. Lakers basically had 2 free agent in Ariza and Odom. They wanted to resign both but they would be paying a lot of luxury tax. Ariza wanted a lot of money so they let him go and signed Artest who took a lesser salary than what Ariza wanted. Then Ariza went to Houston because Houston did not resign Artest. It wasn't an official trade but essentially they traded places.

ryder78c
05-23-2010, 08:04 PM
Soft cap its at 57.7 million but if they dont go over 69 million they dont have to pay dollar for dollar tax so if they owner wants to spend the money then he can like Mj i dont think he's a billionaire yet so he cant spend as much as the nets or the Lakers or the knicks or the heat or blazers because he doesnt have enough pocket to spend on the tax per year he probley could with what he gets per year but i doubt it

like people said before CLOSE THREAD

ManRam
05-23-2010, 08:07 PM
It's not corrupt at all. Sorry if I'm regurgitating stuff.

This season especially, there was a huge divide amongst teams willing to spend, and teams not willing to spend. This off-season really split the league in half. Teams wanting to win could easily acquire expensive players as long as they could take on the burden of the contracts the received. Teams who were looking to rebuild we able to pawn off their overpaid players to those teams willing to spend to win. The result: the contending teams with huge luxury tax defecits, and 8-10 teams with a massive amount of cap this off-season. Of course, it is more than just trades. There are a plethora of ways teams can go over the cap, from the MLE, to Bird-rights, to trade exceptions etc.

The wonder of it all...it will all balance out very quickly.

IversonIsKrazy
05-24-2010, 02:01 AM
If ur GM is rich enough, and is willing to pay a LOT of taxes, then u can be as over as u want

Sixerlover
05-24-2010, 02:06 AM
^ Owner... Not GM

heathonater
05-24-2010, 02:08 AM
you can sign guys from your own team that have played their for a certain amount of seasons and go over the salary cap. but, once you are over the cap, you would have to do a sign and trade to match salaries if you wanted to get a fa. alot of bad teams either spend their money poorly or dont spend it all, which leads to the top teams benefitting and getting trades for some good players.

ChiSox219
05-24-2010, 02:09 AM
Based on my ideas, the Lakers would have been able to keep Odom OR sign Artest unless they traded somebody to open the space. Also, the Celtics wouldn't have been able to add Rasheed Wallace.

Keeping a firm line at $10 above the luxury will keep teams from keeping or adding too much talent.

Under your rule Odom and Ariza would have been let go and no signing of Artest would've been allowed...

abe_froman
05-24-2010, 02:24 AM
I was thinking about the big name talent on all the major competitors in the playoffs, and decided to look at the salaries of the NBA teams this year.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

This list shows that the top teams in the NBA coincidentally have the highest salaries. (except for the knicks) Now this might seem like a logical connection, as the best teams would hence have the best players.

But, here is my dilemma... from wikipedia, we find that "The 2009-10 salary cap has been set at $57.7 million"

If this is true, then how does a team like the Lakers go $34 million OVER the salary cap?

Is this just a good use of loopholes? Or are transactions that should not be approved by the NBA because of their cap consequences? In other words, is the NBA letting teams get away with going over the cap?

If anyone can further clarify the issue, please do.

re-signing your own players is corrupt now?

Chacarron
05-24-2010, 03:00 AM
The Lakers let go of Ariza to aquire Artest. All they did was resign Odom. Lakers basically had 2 free agent in Ariza and Odom. They wanted to resign both but they would be paying a lot of luxury tax. Ariza wanted a lot of money so they let him go and signed Artest who took a lesser salary than what Ariza wanted. Then Ariza went to Houston because Houston did not resign Artest. It wasn't an official trade but essentially they traded places.

Ariza actually signed for the same amount of money as Artest, Ariza wanted a longer guaranteed contract and the Lakers never made an official offer to Ariza. Shannon Brown was also a FA, who signed for the bi-annual exception which is another way to go around the salary cap.