PDA

View Full Version : Do You Agree That The Mid Level Exemption Deserves To Be Taken Away?



xabial
06-19-2011, 04:35 PM
As we all Now, During the Next CBA, The NBA will most likely take away the Mid-Level Exemption. The Mid Level Exemption is...

Once A team is allowed to sign one player to a contract equal to the average NBA salary, even if the team is over the salary cap already, or if the signing would put them over the cap. This is known as the Mid-level exception (MLE). The MLE may be used on an individual free agent or split among multiple free agents, and is available to any team that exceeds the salary cap at the beginning of the off season.

Examples of The Mid Level Exemption being used:


-Ron Artest signing with the Lakers for Five Years $34M
-Shawn Marion signing a Five years $39M Contract (He was immediately traded to the Mavericks, therefore Marion was the Mavericks MLE)
-Magic using a portion of their Mid level exemption to sign Chris Duhon for four years $15M to be their back-up PG.


I think the Mid level Exemption should be kept. It makes GM's more financially flexibility, allowing them to be able to spend more to improve the team for the fans. If the Mavs weren't allowed to use the Mid Level Exemption in 2009 on Shawn Marion, would they have won their first championship in 30 years because of Marion's defense on LeBron most of the series? Just my 2 cents.

What do you think?

Snapcracklepop
06-19-2011, 04:41 PM
As we all Now, During the Next CBA, The NBA will most likely take away the Mid-Level Exemption. The Mid Level Exemption is...

Once A team is allowed to sign one player to a contract equal to the average NBA salary, even if the team is over the salary cap already, or if the signing would put them over the cap. This is known as the Mid-level exception (MLE). The MLE may be used on an individual free agent or split among multiple free agents, and is available to any team that exceeds the salary cap at the beginning of the off season.

Examples of The Mid Level Exemption being used:


-Ron Artest signing with the Lakers for Five Years $34M
-Shawn Marion signing a Five years $39M Contract (He was immediately traded to the Mavericks, therefore Marion was the Mavericks MLE)
-Magic using a portion of their Mid level exemption to sign Chris Duhon for four years $15M to be their back-up PG.


I think the Mid level Exemption should be kept. It makes GM's more financially flexibility, allowing them to be able to spend more to improve the team for the fans. If the Mavs weren't allowed to use the Mid Level Exemption in 2009 on Shawn Marion, would they have won their first championship in 30 years because of Marion's defense on LeBron most of the series? Just my 2 cents.

What do you think?

if your fine with not seeing the great teams improve, by the only means they can improve, then take it aways

the crap teams get high pick, get good players

the good-great teams get crap players who take 3 years or so to evolve to a silid rotational big man

if you want to take MLE away, i argue that the drafts lottery should be open to all teams instead of the top 14, because without the MLE, great teams cant get better, and without the draft picks, crap teams dont improve

it go the both way man!

how is MLE unfair when half of these crap team have 10+million in cap space, while good team is over the limit

if you take MLE away, make the lottery open to every team

B'sCeltsPatsSox
06-19-2011, 04:43 PM
Keep the MLE but the team that uses it on a player has to pay a compensation to the team that is losing that player based on how good the player is.

Snapcracklepop
06-19-2011, 04:46 PM
Keep the MLE but the team that uses it on a player has to pay a compensation to the team that is losing that player based on how good the player is.

ridicolous, no offense to you, but to the idea, no hard feeling please, but i think that is maddness

B'sCeltsPatsSox
06-19-2011, 04:48 PM
ridicolous, no offense to you, but to the idea, no hard feeling please, but i think that is maddness

Why not? It keeps teams a little more balanced. The MLB does this for free agent signings.

Snapcracklepop
06-19-2011, 04:52 PM
Why not? It keeps teams a little more balanced. The MLB does this for free agent signings.

mlb also has two confrence who dont have same rules(dh), and 0 salary cap so their league is unbalanced by their own fault, nba has cap

B'sCeltsPatsSox
06-19-2011, 04:53 PM
mlb also has two confrence who dont have same rules(dh), and 0 salary cap so their league is unbalanced by their own fault, nba has cap

Yes but the NBA cap has so many exceptions that allows you to go over the cap.

Jewelz0376
06-19-2011, 04:53 PM
The Lakers wouldn't be able to sign anyone if it weren't for the mle lol..

The weak teams are already at an advantage because they can offer more money, so usually they get the younger free agents... I think they should leave it as is

Snapcracklepop
06-19-2011, 05:04 PM
The Lakers wouldn't be able to sign anyone if it weren't for the mle lol..

The weak teams are already at an advantage because they can offer more money, so usually they get the younger free agents... I think they should leave it as is

agreeds. if you want to take the MLE away, then open the lottery to everyone, if people wanna talk fair

its not my faults that no one wants to play for crap teams, in the middle of kansas

Giraffes Rule
06-19-2011, 05:14 PM
The MLE isn't big enough to really make for truly bad contracts. Leave it.

daleja424
06-19-2011, 05:32 PM
I say leave it... it provides a small window for good teams to get better. Without it... how will the 4-5 seeds ever improve to a point where they can challenge the 1-2 seeds?

gotoHcarolina52
06-19-2011, 05:47 PM
Leave it, but allow teams to use it only once every two years.

daleja424
06-19-2011, 05:49 PM
Leave it, but allow teams to use it only once every two years.

Hmmm... interesting idea.

As it is right now teams get a MLE every year and a BAE every other year...

Lets switch them. MLE every other year, and a LLE every year.

MLE= about 6 mil
LLE= about 2 mil or so

Giraffes Rule
06-19-2011, 05:51 PM
Leave it, but allow teams to use it only once every two years.

I'd go one further and increase the MLE to 10 million or so. Make that last for 3-4 years though, so they can choose to use some of it each year or blow it all one year and have no money to spend the next few years.

**** parity.

xabial
06-19-2011, 05:56 PM
The MLE isn't big enough to really make for truly bad contracts. Leave it.

Jared Jeffries. Signed to the Full MLE 5 Years $30M in 2006 by Isiah Thomas. Never averaged more than 6.3 points in the duration of that contract or even 5 Rebounds.

In order to dump his contract to be allowed to sign Stat&Melo Knicks had to give Houston the rights to switch 2011 1st round picks with them if The Knicks pick is higher, and a 2012 1st round Pick if its pick #6 and lower. We gave them our 2009 1st Round Pick Jordan Hill too (Pick #8).

All that to take jeffries Contract of their hands. Houston eventually bought him out of his last year of his contract...and surprise..Knicks resign him for the vet minimum in 2010.

For all of you who wonder how he got that contract from Isiah he was a "good" defender. Yea, like that made a difference.

At least we got the expiring contract of Tmac for him!

I still have nightmares of him bricking layups from point blank range.

Giraffes Rule
06-19-2011, 05:59 PM
Jared Jeffries. Signed to the Full MLE 5 Years $30M by Isiah Thomas. Never averaged more than 6.3 points in the duration of that contract or even 5 Rebounds.

In order to dump his contract to be allowed to sign Stat&Melo Knicks had to give Houston the rights to switch 2011 1st round picks with them if The Knicks pick is higher, and a 2012 1st round Pick if its 6 and lower. Oh yea we gave them our 2009 1st Round Pick Jordan Hill too (Pick #8).

All that to take jeffries Contract of their hands. Houston eventually bought him out of his last year of his contract...and surprise..Knicks resign him for the vet minimum in 2010.

For all of you who wonder how he got that contract from Isiah he was a "good" defender. Yea, like that made a difference.

I still have nightmares of him bricking layups from point blank range.
That's still not a crippling contract though. Besides, Isiah Thomas is the king of stupid *** moves. The MLE could be 500K a year and he'd still find a way to **** his team up.

Teeboy1487
06-19-2011, 06:00 PM
I think the top 5 teams should not have a mle and the teams who are on the cusp of contending and lower should have it. The league needs more balance. This is a way for the top teams to actually get worse like they should. As a Lakers fan, I should appreciate the mle but I feel like the league need more balance.

llemon
06-19-2011, 06:11 PM
The Lakers wouldn't be able to sign anyone if it weren't for the mle lol..

The weak teams are already at an advantage because they can offer more money, so usually they get the younger free agents... I think they should leave it as is

The weak teams are at an advantage. Did you just say that. Any decent player would want to play with a stacked team that can sign them for a significant salary, even though they are over the cap.

The weak teams that are under the cap will have to top that MLE offer significantly to get that same offer, and use up actual capspace that has a figure they can't exceed.

MLE must be done away with, to equal the field and force some fiscal responsibility, and I believe the owners want to be forced to have fiscal responsibility, because they obviously have no control over themselves. THAT is why there are Labor negotiations going on.

AKAYaReal
06-19-2011, 06:11 PM
I say keep the MLE but to make sure teams dont just go blowing money on it, require that all MLE contracts are its own independent luxury tax and travels to any team the contract goes to whether a team is over the cap or not.

By doing this, teams wont give people a MLE unless they really feel the player is absolutely worth it and also wont be able to just dump it off on a team with cap space.

I personally feel it is needed in this league. When you have a championship team and may need to retain players that were on the championship team, the MLE may be the only weapon a team has if they dont own the players bird rights.

xabial
06-19-2011, 06:12 PM
That's still not a crippling contract though. Besides, Isiah Thomas is the king of stupid *** moves. The MLE could be 500K a year and he'd still find a way to **** his team up.

It isnt a crippling contract but its a bad contract. Just to dump his contract Knicks gave Houston the right to swap a 1st round pick with them and a 2012 1st round pick, and 2009 lottery pick Jordan Hill.
And $6M+ yearly for a "defender" who wont give you rebounds, or points. For 5 ***** years?

Eddy Curry's contract was crippling but Jeffries 5 years $30M was bad.

Giving Eddy Curry $21M to play 13 games over two years was crippling but Eddy wasnt a MLE.

llemon
06-19-2011, 06:16 PM
The MLE isn't big enough to really make for truly bad contracts. Leave it.

Diop, Childress, Jeffries, Posey, Juwan Howard, Damon Stoudamire, Al Harrington, Ryan Hollins, Nazr, Bass, Duhon, QR, Kapono, Songalia, Udrih, Bonner, Reggie Evans.

Lake_Show2416
06-19-2011, 06:20 PM
there would be only like 5 teams that could sign free agents

Jewelz0376
06-19-2011, 06:46 PM
The weak teams are at an advantage. Did you just say that. Any decent player would want to play with a stacked team that can sign them for a significant salary, even though they are over the cap.

The weak teams that are under the cap will have to top that MLE offer significantly to get that same offer, and use up actual capspace that has a figure they can't exceed.

MLE must be done away with, to equal the field and force some fiscal responsibility, and I believe the owners want to be forced to have fiscal responsibility, because they obviously have no control over themselves. THAT is why there are Labor negotiations going on.

Most of the young free agents are not going to sign for the mle exception...Most young free agents that just finished their rookie contracts are trying to get paid...

llemon
06-19-2011, 06:56 PM
there would be only like 5 teams that could sign free agents

You mean that could sign FAs at above the Vets' Min, or the Bi-Annual LLE.

This would, again, force owners to be fiscally responsible, which is why these negotiations are going on.

Owners want to, NEED TO, hold their feet to the fire, as it seems they do no have the ability to restrict themselves on their own.

Do you understand that?

llemon
06-19-2011, 07:00 PM
Most of the young free agents are not going to sign for the mle exception...Most young free agents that just finished their rookie contracts are trying to get paid...

And these rookies that are trying to get paid.....what makes them different from every worker in America that is trying to get paid?

Or different from any owner of any business in America that is trying to get paid?

Jewelz0376
06-19-2011, 07:04 PM
And these rookies that are trying to get paid.....what makes them different from every worker in America that is trying to get paid?

Or different from any owner of any business in America that is trying to get paid?

Its not different...Whats your point??

daleja424
06-19-2011, 07:07 PM
Maybe some new tax? Like fifty cents on every MLE or BAE dollar?

Sandman
06-19-2011, 07:13 PM
If its taken away it will be because there is a hard cap. Thats a completely different scenario.

Kevj77
06-19-2011, 07:26 PM
Keep the MLE but the team that uses it on a player has to pay a compensation to the team that is losing that player based on how good the player is.What kind of compensation, money? They used to have draft pick compensation when free agency first started. This is how the Lakers landed the #1 pick in 1980 and drafted Magic Johnson. Draft pick compensation didn't work once already and I'd hate to reward teams with a cash compensation for being cheap.

llemon
06-19-2011, 07:31 PM
Its not different...Whats your point??

My point is that you seemed to be making excuses for millionaires coming off their rookie contracts.

If that is what you are saying, then I can only say that I don't care about millionaires looking for as many more millions as they can either earn or scam from some NBA team.

If that isn't what you were saying, then all is as it was.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
06-19-2011, 07:50 PM
What kind of compensation, money? They used to have draft pick compensation when free agency first started. This is how the Lakers landed the #1 pick in 1980 and drafted Magic Johnson. Draft pick compensation didn't work once already and I'd hate to reward teams with a cash compensation for being cheap.

Draft picks but depending on how good the player is you can put protections on it(like lottery protection or top 10 protection).

daleja424
06-19-2011, 07:52 PM
Thats dumb... what MLE player is worth a draft pick? Seriosuly...

Teams only get 2 draft picks a year as it is... and you think they should have to give them up to sign MLE players? really?

Jewelz0376
06-19-2011, 07:59 PM
My point is that you seemed to be making excuses for millionaires coming off their rookie contracts.

If that is what you are saying, then I can only say that I don't care about millionaires looking for as many more millions as they can either earn or scam from some NBA team.

If that isn't what you were saying, then all is as it was.

I was only talking about why weaker teams with more cap space have an advantage when it comes to free agency over the stronger teams... the younger free agents usually go to a weaker team because they can offer them more money..

In no way am I faulting players right after their rookie contract to try and get paid..I'd do the same thing

crewfan13
06-19-2011, 08:07 PM
I think the MLE can easily be done away with. It doesn't punish teams like the Heat for loading up because they can continue to sign decent role players to the MLE. Owners shouldn't be given a bail out like that. If you're over the cap, then tough luck, you can't sign anyone who wasn't already on your team. I'm fine with Bird rights and keeping players on their original team, but what's the point of a cap if you can just go over it anyway?

Its things like this that the owners are in such a bad financial place. If you make it a hard cap, owners would really have to be careful with their money.

beasted86
06-19-2011, 08:09 PM
I don't like when people put reasons behind a "yes" or "no" poll question. But anyhow...

I picked "no" not because it helps improve my team, I picked it because without a mid-level there is no such thing as free agency, as only a handful of teams at best have caps space each summer, and veterans won't have any bargaining tools in negotiating their fair value. Players looking to re-sign through bird rights would be at the mercy of hoping an owner decides to give them their fair market value out of the good will of their heart (see: not likely).

Bishnoff
06-19-2011, 08:15 PM
Yes, get rid of the MLE. It just allows the higher spending owners to cheat the cap. The NBA needs more parity.

LakersIn5
06-19-2011, 08:23 PM
i dont have a problem with the MLE. it benefits the contenders. i dont know about the lottery team but i think that their management just sucks

daleja424
06-19-2011, 08:25 PM
Yes, get rid of the MLE. It just allows the higher spending owners to cheat the cap. The NBA needs more parity.


I think the MLE can easily be done away with. It doesn't punish teams like the Heat for loading up because they can continue to sign decent role players to the MLE. Owners shouldn't be given a bail out like that. If you're over the cap, then tough luck, you can't sign anyone who wasn't already on your team. I'm fine with Bird rights and keeping players on their original team, but what's the point of a cap if you can just go over it anyway?

Its things like this that the owners are in such a bad financial place. If you make it a hard cap, owners would really have to be careful with their money.

You guys need to do a little research before you post...

You realize that there were only 6 teams under the cap last year (and 2 of them were playoff teams that will have to go over the cap to resign their superstars...)

You act like only 3-4 teams exceed the cap...

And how is it unfair to allow everyone the same exception?

JasonJohnHorn
06-19-2011, 08:25 PM
I'm ok with them getting ride of it, or at least lowering its value. Putting the MLE in context, a player like Larry Bird, one of the greatest of all time, only made more than the MLE once in his career. Jordan's anual salary only passed 5.5 million twice.

I know there is inflation to consider, but the fact that teams are allowed to offer contracts bigger than what guys like Bird, Magic and Jordan made through most of their careers is a strong indication that player salaries have been greatly inflated over a short period of time. If teams were allowed to offer contracts this size 15 years ago and go over the cap, they could have signed an all-star every year.

Knocking out the MLE would force teams to be more frugal with their money, or at least lowering it to 3 or 4 million could help.

I suppose if we wanted to work out the math, we'd have to add up how much money every team has spent on MLE's combined. I'm sure the number would be staggering.

The MLE does help teams who sign players whose production drop off the map (Arenas, Marbury, Francis, ect), but it does inflate salaries more than one might imagine.

daleja424
06-19-2011, 08:31 PM
I'm ok with them getting ride of it, or at least lowering its value. Putting the MLE in context, a player like Larry Bird, one of the greatest of all time, only made more than the MLE once in his career. Jordan's anual salary only passed 5.5 million twice.

I know there is inflation to consider, but the fact that teams are allowed to offer contracts bigger than what guys like Bird, Magic and Jordan made through most of their careers is a strong indication that player salaries have been greatly inflated over a short period of time. If teams were allowed to offer contracts this size 15 years ago and go over the cap, they could have signed an all-star every year.

Knocking out the MLE would force teams to be more frugal with their money, or at least lowering it to 3 or 4 million could help.

I suppose if we wanted to work out the math, we'd have to add up how much money every team has spent on MLE's combined. I'm sure the number would be staggering.

The MLE does help teams who sign players whose production drop off the map (Arenas, Marbury, Francis, ect), but it does inflate salaries more than one might imagine.

It has very little to do with inflation... and more to do with league income. The MLE is not a set amount... its value is based partially on the salary cap, which is set based on league value.

The league makes a lot more money than it did 20 years ago...and so the players do to.

Not sure what that has to do with the question being asked though. They should get rid of the MLE b/c players 20 years ago didnt make as much? Really? That's your argument?

daleja424
06-19-2011, 08:33 PM
In 1992, when larry retired the NBA cap was 12.5 million. Last year alone 30+ players made more money than that...

Cal827
06-19-2011, 08:43 PM
Either reduce it to like 2 million or get rid of it. It's not the fault of everyone else that some GMs overplay players who don't deserve it (e.g Curry, Hedo, Lewis, Arenas, etc). They made the mess; they should have to find a way to get out of it. After all, isn't that one thing they are supposed to be able to do?

Being a little over the cap and using the MLE isn't too bad (E.g Heat), but when teams like Orlando, Dallas, and LA are almost 30+ million over the cap it's another story.

Romo2Bryant
06-19-2011, 08:47 PM
NO! Keep the MLE haha

Role players should be able to sign with contenders... Why make them sign with a team that is bad or mediocre every season.. They can't force the player to sign with bad teams it's Unfair. So keep the MLE

Romo2Bryant
06-19-2011, 08:48 PM
I don't like when people put reasons behind a "yes" or "no" poll question. But anyhow...

I picked "no" not because it helps improve my team, I picked it because without a mid-level there is no such thing as free agency, as only a handful of teams at best have caps space each summer, and veterans won't have any bargaining tools in negotiating their fair value. Players looking to re-sign through bird rights would be at the mercy of hoping an owner decides to give them their fair market value out of the good will of their heart (see: not likely).

very good post man.. agree 100%

Anilyzer
06-19-2011, 08:58 PM
How about no draft, no salary cap, no restrictions on free agency, nothing.

daleja424
06-19-2011, 09:00 PM
How about no draft, no salary cap, no restrictions on free agency, nothing.

european free market system?

you would get about 5-8 good teams... and 22-25 atrocious ones...

llemon
06-19-2011, 09:07 PM
How about no draft, no salary cap, no restrictions on free agency, nothing.

8 team league. Just like back in the day.

Those players that can't find an NBA job should look elsewhere, and quickly.

droalex
06-19-2011, 09:12 PM
Change MLE contacts to be only 2-3 years max?

bigA9331
06-19-2011, 09:15 PM
Leave it

llemon
06-19-2011, 09:15 PM
Change MLE contacts to be only 2-3 years max?

Salary starting at $2.7 mil, max.

daleja424
06-19-2011, 09:30 PM
Salary starting at $2.7 mil, max.

That wouldnt really be a mid-level exception then... that would be an arbitrary number exception...

LTBaByyy
06-19-2011, 10:04 PM
So now good role players are going to have to sign with bad teams!!!

They should have an option to join a contender

daleja424
06-19-2011, 10:12 PM
So now good role players are going to have to sign with bad teams!!!

They should have an option to join a contender

this...

MLE doesnt get you a star... it gets you nice role players...

The bad teams don't need to sign role players anyways... they have a whole team of role players guys... They need to find stars

daleja424
06-19-2011, 10:13 PM
For instance... Miami, Boston, and NY will probably all be fighting for Sam Dalembert this year with the MLE.

Sam Dalembert doesn't turn around a lottery team, but he could put a playoff team over the top.

godolphins
06-19-2011, 10:15 PM
Leave it!! The top teams like the Mavericks, Heat, Thunder, Bulls, Celtics, Knicks, Lakers, Spurs, Magic, etc... need it to get better, the NBA is at it best right now so there's no need to mess things up by trying to give the "bad" teams a chance to contend.

Sandman
06-19-2011, 10:17 PM
I think everybody is misunderstanding the subject at hand.

Hard salary cap and getting rid of the MLE aren't the same thing.

If they're serious they would have to install a hard salary cap higher than 56. I know they want to roll back salaries, but setting every team to a hard cap at 56 would be a roll back far more than the reported 300 million.

godolphins
06-19-2011, 10:19 PM
8 team league. Just like back in the day.

Those players that can't find an NBA job should look elsewhere, and quickly.
That wouldn't be so bad
East: Heat, Bulls, Knicks, Boston or Orlando
West: Dallas, OKC, Lakers, Spurs or Memphis

NetsPaint
06-19-2011, 11:44 PM
While we're talking about this, anyone else wonder how the Lakers are able to afford these players even with the MLE? It seems as if they're half a way from being double over the the cap.:laugh2:

jeter 2
06-19-2011, 11:57 PM
Leave it, but it does encourage teams to overpay guys like Steve Blake lol.

crewfan13
06-20-2011, 12:01 AM
You guys need to do a little research before you post...

You realize that there were only 6 teams under the cap last year (and 2 of them were playoff teams that will have to go over the cap to resign their superstars...)

You act like only 3-4 teams exceed the cap...

And how is it unfair to allow everyone the same exception?

But that's my point. Getting rid of the MLE would force management to actually manage their finances. In the current system, there's very little punishment for going over the cap. You can still retain your current players and you're given the MLE, to sign what in a fair amount of cases can be a pretty good player.

I don't like the idea of the Heat. (Disclaimer: this is in no way a discussion about players abilities or whether or not I like certain players. Its about the theory behind it. ) I don't like that a team can throw pretty much all of their salary cap at 3 stud players, then still manage to get guys like Haslem and Miller. I like the nfl, where if you dont' sign all of your guys under cap, then tough luck, you lose them.

I know if the MLE is gotten rid of, something would have to be done, like a bump in the salary cap, at least temporarily, to allow teams to sign FAs despite thier bad contracts, or allow them to release a bad contract or two. But in the long run, getting rid of stupid ploys that allow management to go over the salary cap should be gotten rid of to make teams actually manage their finances.

crewfan13
06-20-2011, 12:10 AM
For instance... Miami, Boston, and NY will probably all be fighting for Sam Dalembert this year with the MLE.

Sam Dalembert doesn't turn around a lottery team, but he could put a playoff team over the top.

That's terrible logic. That's like saying the middle class of America shouldn't recieve any minor tax breaks, becuase they aren't the ones who will have the spending power to turn the economy around. So lets let the businesses and rich people get all the tax breaks so they can be even richer than normal middle class people.

You know what Dalembert would do for a middle tier, borderline playoff team. He'd make them alittle bit better, but it woudl also make the good teams alittle worse, since they can't sign guys over cap. That would level the playing field more. So no Dalembert doesn't make a team like the Bobcats for instance an immediate championship contender, but he might make them better and still leave the teams like NY, Miami and Boston with holes in teh middle of thier defense.

beasted86
06-20-2011, 01:25 AM
I'm ok with them getting ride of it, or at least lowering its value. Putting the MLE in context, a player like Larry Bird, one of the greatest of all time, only made more than the MLE once in his career. Jordan's anual salary only passed 5.5 million twice.

Can any of you opponents to the mid-level please refute my post from before?

Here is a repost:

I picked "no" not because it helps improve my team, I picked it because without a mid-level there is no such thing as free agency, as only a handful of teams at best have caps space each summer, and veterans won't have any bargaining tools in negotiating their fair value. Players looking to re-sign through bird rights would be at the mercy of hoping an owner decides to give them their fair market value out of the good will of their heart (see: not likely).


If there is no mid-level, what do players coming off rookie contracts, or veterans in general have to negotiate against?

Jordan and those guys didn't make whate they made because that's what their worth was... it's because the system back then handicapped players from really getting their true value, and from signing with outside teams. No mid-level + restricted free agency = take whatever the owner decides he wants to pay you.

HouRealCoach
06-20-2011, 01:30 AM
I think MLE should only be 3 years MAX

But if a stupid GM wants to sign guys like Jared Jeffries and overpay them then let em... Who's fault is that?

orlandij
06-20-2011, 01:55 AM
I say combine the MLE and Bi-Annual. The dollar amount is set at the MLE but it can only be used once every two years, or spread over two years. So say you can use it in 2012, you lock in at an MLE $ amount then and whatever you don't use can be used the following year. In 2014 you start over. This still gives team some options and saves the owners money in the long run.

I am not a fan of a hard cap at all, but think there are some compromises that can be made to make it very close to a hard cap. For example there can be a small cap with a ceiling. That way MLE can be used but make it a 3 or 4 year contract as opposed to 5. Also put a limit to the ability to sign your own player to exceed the cap. Limit it to only two players in a given timeframe, or set an amount above the soft cap youn cannot exceed by doing so.

beasted86
06-20-2011, 02:01 AM
I say combine the MLE and Bi-Annual. The dollar amount is set at the MLE but it can only be used once every two years, or spread over two years. So say you can use it in 2012, you lock in at an MLE $ amount then and whatever you don't use can be used the following year. In 2014 you start over. This still gives team some options and saves the owners money in the long run.


I actually think that's a great idea.

This would really help owners think twice about blowing the mid-level all on one player, and still cut down overall spending.

orlandij
06-20-2011, 02:15 AM
Thank you. I have a ton of great ideas if they would only let me mediate. I consider myself to be a "capologist" and have a ton of suggestions that could get this thing wrapped up real quick. Damn I wish I had a connection in the NBA to get a job.

Antipod
06-20-2011, 02:25 AM
It`s basically the only way a non lottery over the cap team can acquire a decent/good player.
So, i would keep the MLE.

xabial
06-20-2011, 09:08 AM
Its stupid, NBA should just keep the MLE. How else are they going to sign Role players if it was taken away?

Sportfan
06-20-2011, 09:39 AM
Jared Jeffries. Signed to the Full MLE 5 Years $30M in 2006 by Isiah Thomas. Never averaged more than 6.3 points in the duration of that contract or even 5 Rebounds.

In order to dump his contract to be allowed to sign Stat&Melo Knicks had to give Houston the rights to switch 2011 1st round picks with them if The Knicks pick is higher, and a 2012 1st round Pick if its pick #6 and lower. We gave them our 2009 1st Round Pick Jordan Hill too (Pick #8).

All that to take jeffries Contract of their hands. Houston eventually bought him out of his last year of his contract...and surprise..Knicks resign him for the vet minimum in 2010.

For all of you who wonder how he got that contract from Isiah he was a "good" defender. Yea, like that made a difference.

At least we got the expiring contract of Tmac for him!

I still have nightmares of him bricking layups from point blank range.
That's Isiah, so it doesn't count.


Leave it.

jtsunami
06-20-2011, 09:54 AM
I say leave it, but have more restrictions on it so you can't keep adding more and more payroll like the Lakers are (no offense to Lakers fans).

Only use it once every other year. Cap the years off at 2 (which matches up with being able to use every other year). Keeping it at 2 years also prevents that player from gaining Bird Rights.

AntiG
06-20-2011, 10:02 AM
As said before, the problem with the NBA is that there are too many franchises and there needs to be about 4-8 franchises gotten rid of around the league. MLE and the soft cap are important tools in dealing with the cap and preventing the NBA from turning into simply a league full of mediocrity.

jtsunami
06-20-2011, 10:14 AM
As said before, the problem with the NBA is that there are too many franchises and there needs to be about 4-8 franchises gotten rid of around the league. MLE and the soft cap are important tools in dealing with the cap and preventing the NBA from turning into simply a league full of mediocrity.

Mediocrity is not the right word. Mediocrity implies that the talent level goes down. It won't. Instead, it will make more teams competitive. That word is called parity. And parity is the reason why the NFL is a ****ing cash cow. I love watching my Bulls, but the NBA is trash.

dodie53
06-20-2011, 10:47 AM
i clicked yes by mistake
oppsss
hehe

Tony_Starks
06-20-2011, 12:15 PM
I think the MLE is fine just the way it is. But then again I believe the system in general is fine just the way it is and the owners have to take more responsibility for making unwise financial decisions but thats just me.......

daleja424
06-20-2011, 12:17 PM
I think the MLE is fine just the way it is. But then again I believe the system in general is fine just the way it is and the owners have to take more responsibility for making unwise financial decisions but thats just me.......

I agree... the NBA is more popular now than it has ever been in its history... so why mess with that system of success? The new CBA may need some behind the scenes tinkering to make the money work... but the majority of the CBA should remain the same

crewfan13
06-20-2011, 07:29 PM
Can any of you opponents to the mid-level please refute my post from before?

Here is a repost:


If there is no mid-level, what do players coming off rookie contracts, or veterans in general have to negotiate against?

Jordan and those guys didn't make whate they made because that's what their worth was... it's because the system back then handicapped players from really getting their true value, and from signing with outside teams. No mid-level + restricted free agency = take whatever the owner decides he wants to pay you.


Maybe just eliminating the MLE isn't the only answer, but its a step towards financial responsibility on the owners behalf. I agree at first, it could very well hurt the mid level FAs, but in the long run, it should help. The problem is that now teams are allowed to use up their entire cap, then still sign FAs. Waht's the point of a salary cap if that's the case. Maybe everything will have to be restructured, but I think a hard cap should be put in place. Maybe that number has to go up too, but I don't like the idea that a team can spend the vast majority of its salary on 3 or so players, yet they are still given means of signing pretty decent role players.

Also, I think the MLE hurts the bad teams worse than people think. Instead of just competing against teams under cap, the bad teams still have to compete with the good teams for mid level type players. Case in point for me is Drew Gooden. I'm a Bucks fan, and his signing proves to me the financial stress that's put on small teams because of this. The small teams now have to offer mid level players above average contracts to lure them. If you have the choice to play on a non-contending team like Minn, Mil, Char, Toronto, and others, or a contender like Miami or LA for the same money, you're obviously going to choose the contender. So now, in order to lure these FAs, small markets have to offer the mid level guys bigger contracts, which puts them in a bad financial spot.



I agree... the NBA is more popular now than it has ever been in its history... so why mess with that system of success? The new CBA may need some behind the scenes tinkering to make the money work... but the majority of the CBA should remain the same

Also, the nba is very popular right now, but I think its on thin ice. Alot of people watched this year because the Heat were the villians. They teamed up to make a big 3 and everyone watched and wanted them to lose. If the nba continues like it is, you'll have more "super" teams. That means there's more the Heat are no longer villans. Its the top 6 or so teams in the nba that are good have all the good players, so the majority of small market teams fans won't even care anymore, leaving basketball only popular in a few select markets across the nation like LA, Boston, Miami, NY and maybe a few others.

llemon
06-20-2011, 07:33 PM
Maybe just eliminating the MLE isn't the only answer, but its a step towards financial responsibility on the owners behalf. I agree at first, it could very well hurt the mid level FAs, but in the long run, it should help. The problem is that now teams are allowed to use up their entire cap, then still sign FAs. Waht's the point of a salary cap if that's the case. Maybe everything will have to be restructured, but I think a hard cap should be put in place. Maybe that number has to go up too, but I don't like the idea that a team can spend the vast majority of its salary on 3 or so players, yet they are still given means of signing pretty decent role players.

Also, I think the MLE hurts the bad teams worse than people think. Instead of just competing against teams under cap, the bad teams still have to compete with the good teams for mid level type players. Case in point for me is Drew Gooden. I'm a Bucks fan, and his signing proves to me the financial stress that's put on small teams because of this. The small teams now have to offer mid level players above average contracts to lure them. If you have the choice to play on a non-contending team like Minn, Mil, Char, Toronto, and others, or a contender like Miami or LA for the same money, you're obviously going to choose the contender. So now, in order to lure these FAs, small markets have to offer the mid level guys bigger contracts, which puts them in a bad financial spot.




Also, the nba is very popular right now, but I think its on thin ice. Alot of people watched this year because the Heat were the villians. They teamed up to make a big 3 and everyone watched and wanted them to lose. If the nba continues like it is, you'll have more "super" teams. That means there's more the Heat are no longer villans. Its the top 6 or so teams in the nba that are good have all the good players, so the majority of small market teams fans won't even care anymore, leaving basketball only popular in a few select markets across the nation like LA, Boston, Miami, NY and maybe a few others.

crew, I agree with you absolutely.

beasted86
06-20-2011, 07:39 PM
Maybe just eliminating the MLE isn't the only answer, but its a step towards financial responsibility on the owners behalf. I agree at first, it could very well hurt the mid level FAs, but in the long run, it should help. The problem is that now teams are allowed to use up their entire cap, then still sign FAs. Waht's the point of a salary cap if that's the case. Maybe everything will have to be restructured, but I think a hard cap should be put in place. Maybe that number has to go up too, but I don't like the idea that a team can spend the vast majority of its salary on 3 or so players, yet they are still given means of signing pretty decent role players.

Also, I think the MLE hurts the bad teams worse than people think. Instead of just competing against teams under cap, the bad teams still have to compete with the good teams for mid level type players. Case in point for me is Drew Gooden. I'm a Bucks fan, and his signing proves to me the financial stress that's put on small teams because of this. The small teams now have to offer mid level players above average contracts to lure them. If you have the choice to play on a non-contending team like Minn, Mil, Char, Toronto, and others, or a contender like Miami or LA for the same money, you're obviously going to choose the contender. So now, in order to lure these FAs, small markets have to offer the mid level guys bigger contracts, which puts them in a bad financial spot.


Basically your whole stance is good teams shouldn't be getting better or high payroll teams shouldn't be adding more payroll, when my post was in regards to all players on all teams -- good or bad, high payroll or low payroll.

As I said, what obligation is there on the owners to pay players what they are really worth if there is no competition from outside teams to sign them? In business a "market" is created by competition. Removing the mid-level would remove a lot of competition from the free agent market, as only a handful of teams have cap space.

crewfan13
06-20-2011, 07:50 PM
^^^No my point is that owners should be more financially responsible. They shouldn't allowed to sign players when they are over cap. If they want to sign role players and decent guys, then they should allocate that money under the cap. If that were to happen, then the cap number would probably have to go up, but what I'm saying is not meant to be a shot at the Heat. Its a shot at the system that allowed the Heat to happen. There should be more "punishment" for teams that do what the Heat did, which was allocate the majority of their budget to a few assets.

If you want to talk about market's then let's look at this from an aspect that we can relate to our current economical situation. IMO, the MLE is like government bailouts to the big companies. Its basically saying that we used up too much of our money on a few assets and we can't afford to continue to operate without more money or in the NBA's case, we can't contend without another solid player.

Once teams start realizing that they can't win strictly with only 2 or 3 very high paid players, then the mid level guys will see their salaries rise. GMs will have to be more responsible with their money, and, in theory, that should hurt the top tier players, not the mid level guys. In my line of thinking, if you have a hard cap that says you can't go over X amount of dollars, teams will be forced to think twice about offering up max contracts to the Michael Redds, Rudy Gays, Andre Iguodalas and other players like that. It should drive the contracts of the top guys down alittle, and keep the mid level guys the same, because, without the MLE, teams will realize the value of the Shawn Marions and Ron Artests.

crewfan13
06-20-2011, 07:57 PM
double post...my bad.

Kevj77
06-20-2011, 08:17 PM
^^^No my point is that owners should be more financially responsible. They shouldn't allowed to sign players when they are over cap. If they want to sign role players and decent guys, then they should allocate that money under the cap. If that were to happen, then the cap number would probably have to go up, but what I'm saying is not meant to be a shot at the Heat. Its a shot at the system that allowed the Heat to happen. There should be more "punishment" for teams that do what the Heat did, which was allocate the majority of their budget to a few assets.

If you want to talk about market's then let's look at this from an aspect that we can relate to our current economical situation. IMO, the MLE is like government bailouts to the big companies. Its basically saying that we used up too much of our money on a few assets and we can't afford to continue to operate without more money or in the NBA's case, we can't contend without another solid player.

Once teams start realizing that they can't win strictly with only 2 or 3 very high paid players, then the mid level guys will see their salaries rise. GMs will have to be more responsible with their money, and, in theory, that should hurt the top tier players, not the mid level guys. In my line of thinking, if you have a hard cap that says you can't go over X amount of dollars, teams will be forced to think twice about offering up max contracts to the Michael Redds, Rudy Gays, Andre Iguodalas and other players like that. It should drive the contracts of the top guys down alittle, and keep the mid level guys the same, because, without the MLE, teams will realize the value of the Shawn Marions and Ron Artests.Why shouldn't teams be allowed to spend money if they have it to spend? What about teams that make a very good profit shouldn't they be allowed to reinvest in their on court product. Also why can't teams have 2-3 top end players. The Heat did nothing wrong they got under the cap and used their cap space. Teams that draft well could also be punished because eventually the rookie contracts are up and it will be time to extend players OKC is an example of this. IMO teams that are always bad is a reflection of ownership and top management not the system.

daleja424
06-20-2011, 08:21 PM
Why shouldn't teams be allowed to spend money if they have it to spend? What about teams that make a very good profit shouldn't they be allowed to reinvest in their on court product. Also why can't teams have 2-3 top end players. The Heat did nothing wrong they got under the cap and used their cap space. Teams that draft well could also be punished because eventually the rookie contracts are up and it will be time to extend players OKC is an example of this. IMO teams that are always bad is a reflection of ownership and top management not the system.
GREAT POINT!

Even the teams that build the "right way" like Oklahoma City are going to run into serious money problems very soon if there is are no exceptions to the salary cap.

Heater4life
06-20-2011, 08:36 PM
Hmmm... interesting idea.

As it is right now teams get a MLE every year and a BAE every other year...

Lets switch them. MLE every other year, and a LLE every year.

MLE= about 6 mil
LLE= about 2 mil or so

Isnt the MLE already every other year?

Im pretty sure if you use the MLE this year, the following year you would be restricted to a BAE. If you do not use your MLE in a given off-season it then carrys over to the following off-season.

???

daleja424
06-20-2011, 08:50 PM
Isnt the MLE already every other year?

Im pretty sure if you use the MLE this year, the following year you would be restricted to a BAE. If you do not use your MLE in a given off-season it then carrys over to the following off-season.

???

no. you are incorrect.

crewfan13
06-20-2011, 08:52 PM
Why shouldn't teams be allowed to spend money if they have it to spend? What about teams that make a very good profit shouldn't they be allowed to reinvest in their on court product. Also why can't teams have 2-3 top end players. The Heat did nothing wrong they got under the cap and used their cap space. Teams that draft well could also be punished because eventually the rookie contracts are up and it will be time to extend players OKC is an example of this. IMO teams that are always bad is a reflection of ownership and top management not the system.

Then why have a cap at all? The teams that make the most money should be able to spend the most money like they do in baseball then.

I never said teams can't have 2-3 top end players. What I said was, teams shouldn't be allowed to allocate pretty much their entire budget on top tier players, then still be able to sign mid level players that will put them over budget. If you want to build your team with 3 great players then all vet minimums, be my guest, but that's your choice. You shouldnt' be allowed to spend all of your cap, then every year or every other year be allowed to sign mid level guys. You should have planned for that.

And I have to disagree with your sentiment about bad teams always being bad because of management. I will admit that Cleveland never did a great job of building around Lebron, but they still did attempt to build around him. They tried to bring in nice complimentary peices then he just packed up and left leaving them with nothing. Also, what did Miami do to be good. All they did was draft one good player and have a great climate. They got 2 FAs that just wanted to team up with each other and they happened to be financially in the right place. They got lucky. And i don't mean that as a rip on their management, but you can't honestly tell me that if that was Milwaukee who was in the same situation that Lebron and Bosh would have come to Milwaukee.

The nfl has the same "problem" in the fact that if you do have a bunch of good young players, you can't always afford them. But yet its still the most popular sport in the nation. Partially because teams usually don't stay really bad for a long time. I think the nba can improve its competitive parity if they follow a similar model.

AntiG
06-20-2011, 08:57 PM
Mediocrity is not the right word. Mediocrity implies that the talent level goes down. It won't. Instead, it will make more teams competitive. That word is called parity. And parity is the reason why the NFL is a ****ing cash cow. I love watching my Bulls, but the NBA is trash.

Parity and mediocrity is the same damned thing. The NFL's biggest problem is that their best teams nowadays are never on the same level as the teams from back in the day due to the salary cap because of the poor overall talent pool around the league.

JasonJohnHorn
06-20-2011, 09:22 PM
I think the MLE is fine just the way it is. But then again I believe the system in general is fine just the way it is and the owners have to take more responsibility for making unwise financial decisions but thats just me.......

Well put!

I agree that owners are to a large degree responsible for the situation. I mean, if you are a player like Stephan Jackson, or Turk, or Arenas, or Marbury, or Francis, or Lewis, of course you are going to accept a rediculously sized contract. Its a no brainer. And it is owners who are inflating the size of the paycheck for these kind of players.

Part of the problem though is that some teams can afford to go over the cap (LA, NY, Chi-town, Miami, Boston) because they can afford it. They are turning over a profit. So teams like Minny, Utah, Detroit, NO and others then have a hard time competing for free agents with those teams. The solution seems simple to me: Profit sharing amongst owners. Once you do that, you take away big markets' ability to shoot over the cap because they are then in the same position as the small market teams, and then nobody is going to want to give a huge contract to a score-first PG that cant shoot over 44% from the fields and hands out almost as many turnovers as they do assists!

The NFL does profit sharing, and while they do have their own salary cap issues and a CBA to deal with, the profit sharing between owners seems like a reasonable way to reduce losses and maintain heahtly and competetive market place for all teams.

The owners have to take up responcibility for the situation they are in. As fans we cringe when we see guys like Charlie V and Ben Gordon offerred the kind of contracts they get offered. Why GMs dont see this as the root problem, I will never understand.

Also, teams shouldnt be allowed to use all their cap space to sign four players and then got over the cap to sign the rest. I think if you only have 2 or 3 players under contract, you should be able to intentionally max out your cap space with the intention of going over the cap to fill out your roster like Miami did. You should have at least enough to alot a vet min. to the remaining roster spots. Going over with the vet min should be allowed only for teams who have had to go over the cap space to make up for injuries, or a team left short after a multi-player trade, or if they had to go over the cap to sign their own free agents. Intentionally setting yourself up to have no cap space just seems like dirty pool in my book.

beasted86
06-20-2011, 09:39 PM
^^^No my point is that owners should be more financially responsible. They shouldn't allowed to sign players when they are over cap. If they want to sign role players and decent guys, then they should allocate that money under the cap. If that were to happen, then the cap number would probably have to go up, but what I'm saying is not meant to be a shot at the Heat. Its a shot at the system that allowed the Heat to happen. There should be more "punishment" for teams that do what the Heat did, which was allocate the majority of their budget to a few assets.

If you want to talk about market's then let's look at this from an aspect that we can relate to our current economical situation. IMO, the MLE is like government bailouts to the big companies. Its basically saying that we used up too much of our money on a few assets and we can't afford to continue to operate without more money or in the NBA's case, we can't contend without another solid player.

Once teams start realizing that they can't win strictly with only 2 or 3 very high paid players, then the mid level guys will see their salaries rise. GMs will have to be more responsible with their money, and, in theory, that should hurt the top tier players, not the mid level guys. In my line of thinking, if you have a hard cap that says you can't go over X amount of dollars, teams will be forced to think twice about offering up max contracts to the Michael Redds, Rudy Gays, Andre Iguodalas and other players like that. It should drive the contracts of the top guys down alittle, and keep the mid level guys the same, because, without the MLE, teams will realize the value of the Shawn Marions and Ron Artests.

You still have not answered how competition is maintained in a free agent market without a mid-level, but since you seem to not want to discuss that lets continue on what you are indeed talking about.

What is the difference between the Heat signing 3 guys making $43M combined in one summer... in comparison to...

Spurs (Duncan+Ginobili+Parker)
Lakers (Kobe+Gasol+Bynum)
Mavericks (Dirk+Chandler+Butler)
Celtics (Garnett+Pierce+Allen)
Knicks (Amare+Carmelo+Billups)
Magic (Howard+Arenas+Richardson)

...All having 3 guys combined making over $40M?

Whether they traded for it, re-signed native players, or signed them all in one offseason, the result is still the same. 75% of the salary cap is used on 3 players, and the team will only get significantly better through the mid-level (as they will not be getting lottery picks). So I don't understand why you are singling out the Heat to be honest.

But that said, I find two things interesting about that list above:

1) Adding the Heat with the 6 teams above.... of those 7 teams total, 6 out of the 7 finished in the top 10 in the NBA standings. Atlanta (Johnson+Smith+Horford) will be joining that list very soon once Horford's extension kicks in making that 7 out of the top 10 teams by standings in the NBA will all have 3 guys alone making over $40M.

2) Of those 8 teams I mentioned, I'd bet 6 of the 8 surely did not lose money last season. So making rules to limit teams from having high payrolls doesn't seem to be much of an answer in all teams losing money. Take for example a team like the Thunder who carry a small payroll by NBA standards, went deep into he playoffs, have a legit top 5 talent fans want to watch, and might have still lost money.

The problem as I see it... let's say you hard cap the league at $65M next season 8 teams (or whatever they wrote.. I forget) will still make a profit, and the other 22 will STILL lose money, so what exactly did you fix?

jimbobjarree
06-20-2011, 09:41 PM
only to teams over the luxury tax

Kevj77
06-20-2011, 09:43 PM
Then why have a cap at all? The teams that make the most money should be able to spend the most money like they do in baseball then.

The nfl has the same "problem" in the fact that if you do have a bunch of good young players, you can't always afford them. But yet its still the most popular sport in the nation. Partially because teams usually don't stay really bad for a long time. I think the nba can improve its competitive parity if they follow a similar model.The soft cap only allows good teams to add role player I see no problem with this at all. The NFL isn't a good comparison they have over 50 players on the roster and player turnover is much greater. The NFL is a soft cap anyways. Signing bonuses with backloaded contracts that players will never see the final years of are loopholes in the NFL cap. NFL teams with money already spend more than other teams every year by giving upfront signing money. The NFL also doesn't have a rookie payscale high first round picks make more money than many proven vets in the NFL. As a Raider fan I can tell you bad management will keep you down for years even in the NFL and Al Davis isn't even cheap just out of touch with the modern NFL.

The parity of the NFL comes from the fact that as much as a third of the roster can change in one offseason, but the NFL is a QB driven league like the NBA is a star driven league. Teams with top QB will always be competitive.

beasted86
06-20-2011, 09:46 PM
only to teams over the luxury tax

I assume that's what David Stern was getting at when he said he wanted a harder soft cap.

crewfan13
06-21-2011, 01:43 PM
You still have not answered how competition is maintained in a free agent market without a mid-level, but since you seem to not want to discuss that lets continue on what you are indeed talking about.

What is the difference between the Heat signing 3 guys making $43M combined in one summer... in comparison to...

Spurs (Duncan+Ginobili+Parker)
Lakers (Kobe+Gasol+Bynum)
Mavericks (Dirk+Chandler+Butler)
Celtics (Garnett+Pierce+Allen)
Knicks (Amare+Carmelo+Billups)
Magic (Howard+Arenas+Richardson)

...All having 3 guys combined making over $40M?

Whether they traded for it, re-signed native players, or signed them all in one offseason, the result is still the same. 75% of the salary cap is used on 3 players, and the team will only get significantly better through the mid-level (as they will not be getting lottery picks). So I don't understand why you are singling out the Heat to be honest.

But that said, I find two things interesting about that list above:

1) Adding the Heat with the 6 teams above.... of those 7 teams total, 6 out of the 7 finished in the top 10 in the NBA standings. Atlanta (Johnson+Smith+Horford) will be joining that list very soon once Horford's extension kicks in making that 7 out of the top 10 teams by standings in the NBA will all have 3 guys alone making over $40M.

2) Of those 8 teams I mentioned, I'd bet 6 of the 8 surely did not lose money last season. So making rules to limit teams from having high payrolls doesn't seem to be much of an answer in all teams losing money. Take for example a team like the Thunder who carry a small payroll by NBA standards, went deep into he playoffs, have a legit top 5 talent fans want to watch, and might have still lost money.

The problem as I see it... let's say you hard cap the league at $65M next season 8 teams (or whatever they wrote.. I forget) will still make a profit, and the other 22 will STILL lose money, so what exactly did you fix?

I have been answering your first point, but apparently you aren't seeing that point. When teams are forced to build their teams as 3 big contracts and then only the vet minimum, they will start to realize the value of mid level contracts. That's what drives the competition. Its not like every team will load up with 3 big contracts and the vet minimum. There will still be teams signing mid level FAs.

As I see it, what will happen is that top level contracts will decline, especially for some of the guys you mentioned above. Guys like Billups, Chandler, Arenas and others you haven't mentioned like Iggy, Redd, and countless other. Teams won't throw as much money at them because they know they have to allocate money to mid level FAs. That's what maintains the competition and keeps contracts at a decent level for mid level guys.

And yes, there still will be teams losing money, but the point is that not allowing the best teams to balloon well above the cap will improve competition. Improved competition will allow more teams to be relevant, so fans will watch more and care about their teams. Improved competition in my mind should equate to more viewership. I know people will point out that the nba had its best viewership in a long time this year, but I honestly think that's partially because people wanted the heat to fail. Once there are 3 or 4 teams out their like the heat, who get marquee FAs to leave thier team to join one team, then most people in small markets won't care anymore.

I used the Heat as an example because its the best example that everyone recognizes. I don't think that anyteam should be allowed to allocated most of their budget to a few guys and still get the MLE. Its not just the Heat. Also, people recognize the Heat the most as that example because its a much higher profile than say someone like Atlanta who had a couple guys they've pretty much always had who's contracts have creeped into that territory.

Of course the temas with the highest payrolls should be the most competitive. I don't understand your point of saying that 6 or the 7 teams that spend $40+mill were in the top of the league. Its only logical that if you can spend the majority of your budget on three players, but still sign other good FAs, you should be competitive. I don't understand how that's a testament to the MLE being good. If anything, it shows that spending money=success.

Only one of those teams you mentioned in the big money spenders drafted their "studs." Outside of SA, as far as I can tell, every other team used trades or FA to acquire thier high priced players, further showing that in the current system, success can be directly linked to expenditures and spending power.

And what does your solution, of keeping the MLE "fix"? Nothing, the same thing happens in your situation where the bad/small market teams still lose money.

Fnom11
06-21-2011, 02:24 PM
I think if they were to remove the MLE is would leave teams that already have a few MLEs in circulation a big advantage.

Shmontaine
06-21-2011, 03:14 PM
nba players make way too much money... and the league is losing money as a whole...

do away with the mle... it doesn't hurt competition.. it helps it.

the first few years would be tough for some players, accepting the bi annual or vet min when they feel (and are under the current payscale) worth more... but after 2-3 years, the league would be saturated with good players making less money (instead of the other way around, as it is today), and the market value of would lower for all players, thus getting this out of control spending back into some control.

to those saying it's unfair to the top teams, that's an oxymoron... the best teams don't deserve to get better as much as the bad teams...

BUT, i feel the best solution would just be to make all contracts non-guaranteed... this would make players earn their money, be injured less, (fans actually get to see the players they are paying to see) and the teams would save money when the players aren't playing...

crewfan13
06-21-2011, 06:45 PM
^^^I agree mostly with that thought process. The non-guarantees would be nice, but I doubt it ever happens. The player association would never go for it. However, making only chunks of contracts guaranteed and by having performance based incentives and elevators, it would help with the problem of paying guys millions to sit on the bench.

And to those saying doing away with the MLE would really help teams with current MLEs under contract, I do agree, but the nba would have to get creative with the salary cap structure the first couple years and then slowly get closer and closer to having no MLEs.

12evolution 9
06-21-2011, 06:58 PM
gotta keep it....only person who wants it removed is Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert... atleast it seems...

beasted86
06-21-2011, 07:17 PM
I have been answering your first point, but apparently you aren't seeing that point. When teams are forced to build their teams as 3 big contracts and then only the vet minimum, they will start to realize the value of mid level contracts. That's what drives the competition. Its not like every team will load up with 3 big contracts and the vet minimum. There will still be teams signing mid level FAs.

As I see it, what will happen is that top level contracts will decline, especially for some of the guys you mentioned above. Guys like Billups, Chandler, Arenas and others you haven't mentioned like Iggy, Redd, and countless other. Teams won't throw as much money at them because they know they have to allocate money to mid level FAs. That's what maintains the competition and keeps contracts at a decent level for mid level guys.


Sorry but this doesn't sense. Maybe I'm reading this wrong... but you think because owners will know they no longer have a mid-level, they will hold back on paying the "all-star talent guys" what they are worth, in mind that they need to save money to spend on the "mid-level talent guys"?

I really hope that's not what you are saying, because that will never happen.



And yes, there still will be teams losing money, but the point is that not allowing the best teams to balloon well above the cap will improve competition. Improved competition will allow more teams to be relevant, so fans will watch more and care about their teams. Improved competition in my mind should equate to more viewership. I know people will point out that the nba had its best viewership in a long time this year, but I honestly think that's partially because people wanted the heat to fail. Once there are 3 or 4 teams out their like the heat, who get marquee FAs to leave thier team to join one team, then most people in small markets won't care anymore.


You might want to believe this with all your heart, but this is obviously false because of the example I gave previously with the Thunder. They have a super star, they have a low cap, they went far in the playoffs, and they still lost money. The NBA didn't publish who were the 8 teams that made money, but I can guarantee you the Thunder wasn't one of them. So your idea that a small market team just needs to put out a good product is false. I recall Reggie Miller said in a telecast that during the Pacers prime runs deep in the playoffs, the Pacers were still barely breaking even those years. The only way the NBA can support smaller market teams is by leaching off of the bigger market teams. If the bigger market teams are no longer good because of rules put in to even parity, the whole league will suffer.

crewfan13
06-21-2011, 08:15 PM
^^^But the option isn't simply losing money and making money. There's a ton more options. Okay, so maybe the Thunder lost alittle money, but if they didn't have good young talent, they would have been hemmoraging money. And if you pay top tier players less money, specifically less guaranteed money, and eliminate MLE, which drives mid level players prices up, then maybe you can go from alittle bit in the red to alittle bit in the green.

Also, you are understanding my first part correctly and I stand by that. I'm not saying the Lebron James of the world will get less money, I'm saying the Michael Redds, Gilbert Arenases, even Rudy Gays won't make as much. Giving a good but not great player the maximum contract will be harder to justify with a hard cap. And teams will come to realization that you do need to allocate some of your budget to mid level guys. Again, I truly believe that. Teams will realize that putting all your chips on 3 players is very very risky. And I'm not saying the Heat wouldn't have given Wade and LBJ the max, but do you think they would have given Bosh the max had they known that the wouldn't have been able to resign Haslem and get Miller. If they had known that they would have had to fill out the roster with second round picks and vet minimums, I'm sure they would have been alot more careful about giving Bosh all that money. And that's where the value of mid level guys will be derived. Teams will have the choice of signing two or three mid level guys or one pretty good player like Bosh. I think you will find alot of teams that opt to go with the mid level type players.

KnicksR4Real
06-21-2011, 08:22 PM
it shud stay

beasted86
06-21-2011, 10:23 PM
^^^But the option isn't simply losing money and making money. There's a ton more options. Okay, so maybe the Thunder lost alittle money, but if they didn't have good young talent, they would have been hemmoraging money. And if you pay top tier players less money, specifically less guaranteed money, and eliminate MLE, which drives mid level players prices up, then maybe you can go from alittle bit in the red to alittle bit in the green.


Regardless of what you typed afterwards, you just a acknowledged a small market team basically ran a perfect season as far as financials go and still lost money. So that throws out the notion that mid-level in any way affects small market teams' financial success.

/end on that.


Also, you are understanding my first part correctly and I stand by that. I'm not saying the Lebron James of the world will get less money, I'm saying the Michael Redds, Gilbert Arenases, even Rudy Gays won't make as much. Giving a good but not great player the maximum contract will be harder to justify with a hard cap. And teams will come to realization that you do need to allocate some of your budget to mid level guys. Again, I truly believe that. Teams will realize that putting all your chips on 3 players is very very risky. And I'm not saying the Heat wouldn't have given Wade and LBJ the max, but do you think they would have given Bosh the max had they known that the wouldn't have been able to resign Haslem and get Miller. If they had known that they would have had to fill out the roster with second round picks and vet minimums, I'm sure they would have been alot more careful about giving Bosh all that money. And that's where the value of mid level guys will be derived. Teams will have the choice of signing two or three mid level guys or one pretty good player like Bosh. I think you will find alot of teams that opt to go with the mid level type players.

Again, false on both accounts.

First because the Heat just made the Finals and were within 2 wins of a championship with basically 3 studs and average-below average supporting players. Sure they might have signed Haslem & Miller, but they basically didn't play all season long, and the Heat finished as the 3rd best team in the standings. That alone says that just a few very good players is all you need. Teams will still pay stars max money, all that will happen is "mid-level talent" guys will not get the money they were getting before, and you will see a lot more free agent turnover like the NFL where guys don't stay with one team long.

By this means, sure you will reduce salaries overall and reduce the financial distress of some teams, but who wants to see an NBA where there are 350 of the 430+ NBA players are free agents in the summer because they only signed a 1 or 2 year deal because they felt they were underpaid and want to go looking for a new contract the next summer? That's not a fix. That's not an NBA I want to see.


2nd, you are wrong on the account that the Heat signed Wade, LeBron OR Bosh to a max contract. You might want to check that out buddy. Those 3 took a huge paycut to play together giving up over $20M a piece from their actual max. THAT is why the Heat were able to sign Miller, Haslem, and Anthony to contracts more than the minimum.