PDA

View Full Version : If they end Max contracts



More-Than-Most
10-07-2014, 02:52 AM
Would Lebron be worth 50 mill a season?

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/articles/lebron-chris-paul-may-push-to-end-max-contracts-in-nba--324413.html

abe_froman
10-07-2014, 03:05 AM
is there still a cap though? financial standpoint ,he'd be worth it(and more);but if a cap was still in place i doubt anyone would allocate that much to him,i'd say it'd likely be somewhere in the 30's(like 35 or so)

akia83
10-07-2014, 08:14 AM
A lot of crappy Franchise would give Lebron 80-90% of the Cap. I mean, the Nuggets would give up all their player to get Lebron and rookie contracts.

He would take a discount anyway to be competitive enough, probably around 50M$ (over 90M$ cap)

mightybosstone
10-07-2014, 08:25 AM
I seriously doubt this will ever happen. As long as there is a salary cap, there will be a need for max contracts. And no way will the owners budge and get rid of max contracts altogether. The solution is pretty simple. If you raise the salary cap, then the amount that players make from max contracts increases with it, as they're currently based on the percentage of the salary cap. You could increase the percent of the cap that a max player could receive, but why would you want to do that when the players are already going to be making substantially more money?

I would be okay with increasing the percentages for max players a tad. Make it so that teams can only feasibly offer two max contracts under the salary cap without having a player's Bird rights. But I wouldn't be okay with them getting rid of max contracts altogether. If you're going to do that, you might as well get rid of the salary cap and become baseball, which would be a horrible direction for the NBA.

Goose17
10-07-2014, 11:09 AM
I seriously doubt this will ever happen. As long as there is a salary cap, there will be a need for max contracts. And no way will the owners budge and get rid of max contracts altogether. The solution is pretty simple. If you raise the salary cap, then the amount that players make from max contracts increases with it, as they're currently based on the percentage of the salary cap. You could increase the percent of the cap that a max player could receive, but why would you want to do that when the players are already going to be making substantially more money?

I would be okay with increasing the percentages for max players a tad. Make it so that teams can only feasibly offer two max contracts under the salary cap without having a player's Bird rights. But I wouldn't be okay with them getting rid of max contracts altogether. If you're going to do that, you might as well get rid of the salary cap and become baseball, which would be a horrible direction for the NBA.

...well that saved me from posting^

IndyRealist
10-07-2014, 11:26 AM
My response is always the same. No max contracts, hard salary cap. Let the market really decide what a player is worth and if paying someone 80-90% of the cap is tenable.

albertajaysfan
10-07-2014, 11:53 AM
My response is always the same. No max contracts, hard salary cap. Let the market really decide what a player is worth and if paying someone 80-90% of the cap is tenable.

Personally don't like this idea because it favours the few who already make a lot of money. Stars will be the only ones who benefit from this and they already have the ability to make up for depressed wages from the NBA via endorsements. Role players whose salaries would take a huge hit in this scenario have fewer opportunities to make it up elsewhere.

I actually think this would be bad for the quality of basketball in the NBA and we would see far more players signing in Europe and China.

A complete free market system is based on flawed economics. Why do people still think it is such a great idea?

Do you realize that the economic theories that prop up a total free market are based on physics that has since been proven to be utterly flawed?

mightybosstone
10-07-2014, 11:57 AM
...well that saved me from posting^
See? We occasionally agree on stuff, after all! :D

My response is always the same. No max contracts, hard salary cap. Let the market really decide what a player is worth and if paying someone 80-90% of the cap is tenable.
I think if you do that, the market will get out of hand and you're just going to be one step away from getting rid of the salary cap altogether. In a perfect world, I'd like to think that NBA front offices would be smart enough to not spend all of their money on a single player and completely destroy the market for everyone else, but this isn't a perfect world. Some NBA teams suck for a reason, some people are in charge of running teams that shouldn't be and some athletes would be more than willing to take as much money as possible regardless of how good the team around them would be.

And ultimately, my biggest concern is that the salary cap will dissolve and the richest owners and large market teams dominate the league forever. In baseball, spending money doesn't necessarily make you successful, because one player rarely makes the difference between a .500 team and being a contender. But it does in basketball. I'm terrified of a league where the the Lakers, Clippers, Knicks and Nets have $300 million payrolls while Milwaukee wins 5 games a year with its $60 million roster.

DanRumors
10-07-2014, 01:48 PM
Not only is LeBron worth $50 million per season, it would change the landscape of all contracts. It would be like abolishing the electoral college - uprooting tradition in order to make it more fair for all players.

Captain Moroni
10-07-2014, 05:07 PM
If Max contracts are indeed eliminated, the NBA will crumble from within. These guys all believe they are worth 35 million a year. Heck Ray Felton thinks he is an elite PG for heavens sake.
This is nothing more than a gateway to eliminating the salary cap altoogether.

Being a Knicks fan, this would help a team with unlimited funds field a winner (Yankees) every single year, Dolan would spend like a Stienbrenner and not Mets Owner Wilpon.

Stars would align in 3 or 4 cities rendering towns like OKC, SLC, Portland, Houston, and Denver obsolete.

The NBA needs to be really careful how they deal with this player unrest. I see another work stopage.

Captain Moroni
10-07-2014, 05:09 PM
Not only is LeBron worth $50 million per season, it would change the landscape of all contracts. It would be like abolishing the electoral college - uprooting tradition in order to make it more fair for all players.

All players would not recieve a fair share. This is the biggest lie of all. If a salary Cap is 75 million and Lebron makes 22 million and love makes 20 million more than half of your payroll serves 2 players. If LeBron makes 50 million....someone aint getting paid.

IndyRealist
10-07-2014, 05:47 PM
Personally don't like this idea because it favours the few who already make a lot of money. Stars will be the only ones who benefit from this and they already have the ability to make up for depressed wages from the NBA via endorsements. Role players whose salaries would take a huge hit in this scenario have fewer opportunities to make it up elsewhere.

I actually think this would be bad for the quality of basketball in the NBA and we would see far more players signing in Europe and China.

A complete free market system is based on flawed economics. Why do people still think it is such a great idea?

Do you realize that the economic theories that prop up a total free market are based on physics that has since been proven to be utterly flawed?

When did I say total free market? By having a cap you are affecting the market conditions. By having minimum wages you affect the market.

It actually does NOT favor those that already make a lot of money, because the team that gives Lebron 80% of the cap will have to employ 12 vet min. guys, and never make the Finals. The teams that succeed will be the ones that do the research and target value assets to field a better team 2-8 than the roster with one superstar and a bunch of scrubs.

Right now, because of max salaries and the soft cap, teams can sign 3 max players and still go out and get a bench. In a hard cap scenario, the top guy might make 50% of the cap (instead of 35% now), but the rest of the salaries will be much more evenly distributed because you have a required minimum roster size. That is MORE money for the vast majority of players, who are not on tax paying teams.

And I'm really not sure how you draw the conclusion that players would go to Europe and China instead, competing for roster spots on teams that only allow 2 or 3 foreign born players and pay wages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of millions. Do you really believe with a $100m cap Lebron will make $90m and the rest of the team will make $10m combined? Who is going to sign onto that team when Minnesota has several $7m spots available?

What we have now is a vast gulf between the ultra-rich players and the rest. While the AVERAGE player makes $5m or so, that number is skewed by the few dozen that make $10m+. The MEDIAN player (the guy right in the middle) makes around $2m. And as you noted, that $2m guy probably does not have endorsements to add income.

A soft cap DOES NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL PLAYER SALARIES. They still make around 50% of BRI whether teams exceed the cap or not. When a team exceeds the cap, they are actually taking salary from players on every other team due to the escrow system.

JEDean89
10-07-2014, 06:29 PM
All players would not recieve a fair share. This is the biggest lie of all. If a salary Cap is 75 million and Lebron makes 22 million and love makes 20 million more than half of your payroll serves 2 players. If LeBron makes 50 million....someone aint getting paid.

Dude this mindset is soooooo wrong it's not even funny. Who, other than LBJ, Love and Kyrie are people paying to see in cleveland? Do you really think that LBJ isn't worth 100 mil at least in terms of the money he brings into the NBA? Do you think that Dion Waiters alone pulls in his worth? He would have to pull in like 8 mil a year for it to be. Do you not realize that these guys get paid millions to play basketball?

When you compare LBJ's 20 mil to a guys 1 mil then it looks like the 1 mil guy is underppaid and you forget that he is still making more than a lot of CEO's to play basketball. LBJ's worth to the league is valued in the 100's of millions. How much money do you think the league has pulled in based off fans hopes that the next MJ will be found? That someone else can be that good and have that storied of a career. Go to nba.com and look who's jersey comes up 1st Look at how the leagues popularity dipped after Jordan retired and only really picked up again until the big 3 were formed in Miami?

Basketball players are beyond entitled if they think that just because they are in the league that they should get a decent fraction of the best players salary. What's funnier though is that fans actually agree with their entitlement and think that they are underppaid also. The only underppaid guys in basketball are the few players like Anthony Davis who actually are carrying a franchise's popularity, and the very top tier guys who either are pulling in an unquantifiable amount (Kobe, LBJ, Durant, Melo, Wade) or the guys who took paycuts (Duncan, Parker).

A player's job is not to win championships or even games. The NBA is not here to provide the world with championships and as something fans get to cheer for. It is here to make money. Why do people think guys lie Al Jefferson and Javale McGee make more money than guys like Gregg Poppovich and Doc Rivers? Because coaches don't bring in money traditionally, though that is a trend that's changing due to fans knowing more about how their teams are changed than ever and a guy like Pop actually now has marketing value.

Markets will work themselves out and find equilibrium. we don't need to overregulate the system. if we create a hardcap or a softcap with extreme luxury penalties then teams won't be able to go over at a certain point, just like today. But if you remove max contracts, then LBJ will be forced to choose between getting paid 40+ mil or trying to team up with 2 other superstars. It is way easier to take a 2 mill a year paycheck than 22 mil a year.

I just don't get most people's thoughts regarding this. 99% of athletes who work their entire lives get to the 2nd highest level don't ever get make it and never get compensated. Most of the athletes who do make it never make a name for themselves enough to actually pull in substantial league value. So why not pay the people who deserve the money, who people are watching games to see make the a proportionate amount?


It's like people feel bad for the guy who makes it and only earns a few mil in their career or something. That is more money than you or me or both of us combined will likely make in our careers. From a business perspective LBJ, Kobe, Melo, Durant and Wade are worth so much because they capture markets. Look at the Knicks value before they got Stat and Melo. It doesn't matter if they are winning chips or not. They fill seats. Guys who fill seats should get paid. Guys who are standing on their shoulders should still get paid, but not high 7, 8 figure sums. If the cap was 62, I would have no problem with the cavs players getting paid this

LBJ - 35 mil
Love -8 mil
Irving - 8 mil
Thompson - 2 mil
Waiters - 2mil

everyone else making up the remaining 7.

THE MTL
10-07-2014, 10:53 PM
Honestly for elite guys like Lebron, KD, etc...ending max contacts seems good. I mean they're value to their respective franchises puts their annual contacts in excess of 50 mil per year but I'm worried about these 3rd tier Gordon Haywood, Eric Bledsoe, types who will then think they are worth 20+ million per year.

It's the mid tier guys that really ruin the contract structure of the league but for some reason there is always a small market team gladly willing to overpay.

True Sports Fan
10-08-2014, 12:45 AM
Honestly for elite guys like Lebron, KD, etc...ending max contacts seems good. I mean they're value to their respective franchises puts their annual contacts in excess of 50 mil per year but I'm worried about these 3rd tier Gordon Haywood, Eric Bledsoe, types who will then think they are worth 20+ million per year.

It's the mid tier guys that really ruin the contract structure of the league but for some reason there is always a small market team gladly willing to overpay.

To be fair for small market teams it's either you overpay the player, or lose him for nothing, or a ****** S&T deal. Some small market teams can't afford to lose the talent/assets they posses

NYKalltheway
10-08-2014, 07:31 PM
Scrap the salary cap, scrap the max contracts, add more teams, add 2nd and 3rd tier leagues and you'll have a better product.

todu82
10-08-2014, 08:00 PM
No, he's not. Yeah he's a good player but no one is worth that much.

mightybosstone
10-08-2014, 08:07 PM
Scrap the salary cap, scrap the max contracts, add more teams, add 2nd and 3rd tier leagues and you'll have a better product.

How will that make for a better product? The richest owners and bigger markets will just dominate even moreso than they do now and the smaller markets will struggle to win any basketball games or attract any superstars. That logic makes absolutely no sense.

Also, what do you mean by "2nd and 3rd tier leagues?" Do you mean like the developmental league? I'm just not getting this.

NYKalltheway
10-09-2014, 09:38 AM
How will that make for a better product? The richest owners and bigger markets will just dominate even moreso than they do now and the smaller markets will struggle to win any basketball games or attract any superstars. That logic makes absolutely no sense.

Also, what do you mean by "2nd and 3rd tier leagues?" Do you mean like the developmental league? I'm just not getting this.


The richest? These guys are trying to run a profitable business. Most can spend about the same amount of money. If an owner doesn't care about profit and wants to build the best team he can just so that he can win, it'd be for the better. The rest will try to catch up. Sure, some might dominate but that's the deal today as well. And if you spend money on players that someone else owns, they get money too that they can reinvest in other top class players. It's a business cycle not the food chain.

2nd and 3rd tier leagues means a promotion/relegation system so that the teams that do not wish to compete with the big wallets and big markets can have a proper league for themselves. And eventually climb up to the top tier and try to compete with them. This will mean that there will be a professional basketball team in every corner of the USA. Having 30 pro teams in a place where basketball is as popular as it is in the USA while Europe which is essentially has the same land mass and population but not the popularity has over 1000 pro teams is ridiculous. The USA must eventually be able to synchronize their sports leagues.

da ThRONe
10-09-2014, 04:15 PM
Just like the NFL we'd finally start seeing some real parity in the NBA.

farren.louis
10-11-2014, 02:37 PM
I like how players are more independent, thinking for themselves. I agree with no salary cap. If baseball can do it why can't football and basketball . baseball won't be around to much longer unless that drastically change the game to make it entertaining.