PDA

View Full Version : Should the NBA abolish Max Contracts?



Crackadalic
07-04-2016, 01:12 PM
Very serious question. Should the NBA just get rid of max contracts all together?

Seeing a bunch of guys get paid as much as well deserved stars is making the NBA easier for players to team up

By getting rid of max contracts if the Knicks wanna throw 40 million at lebron we can but it hampers the Knicks even more in building a well rounded team

Any suggestions from you guys would be greatly appreciated.

NYKnickFanatic
07-04-2016, 01:15 PM
Yeah, just throw the cap out all together.

NYKalltheway
07-04-2016, 01:17 PM
It's called the free market.

Crackadalic
07-04-2016, 01:26 PM
It's called the free market.

A free market with no max contracts or salary cap might be the way to go

Vinylman
07-04-2016, 01:33 PM
I have been saying this since the Miami deal in 2010

The league has to get rid of the max deal and go to a hard cap or any parity is lost forever

BDawk4Prez
07-04-2016, 01:34 PM
I have been saying this since the Miami deal in 2010

The league has to get rid of the max deal and go to a hard cap or any parity is lost forever

This.

hugepatsfan
07-04-2016, 01:39 PM
It's too extreme. The league doesn't want a star on each team which is what would happen. What's good for the NBA is like 4 legit championship contenders, 2 in each conference. A couple of dark horses in each. A couple solid up and coming teams in each. You get rid of the max and you'll have the talent too spread out.

da ThRONe
07-04-2016, 01:41 PM
Yeah at the very least it has to be modified. When you cap a players earning potential it make sense to form these super teams. If Durant had to choose between joining the Warriors or earning say 50% of the cap with another team he'd have something to think about. Know it's kind of a no brainier get your money and form a super team.

hugepatsfan
07-04-2016, 01:43 PM
I'd like to see a rule where each team can designate one player to get an extra $10M/year that doesn't count against the cap. But you have to commit to it each year of their whole contract.

nycericanguy
07-04-2016, 01:46 PM
It's too extreme. The league doesn't want a star on each team which is what would happen. What's good for the NBA is like 4 legit championship contenders, 2 in each conference. A couple of dark horses in each. A couple solid up and coming teams in each. You get rid of the max and you'll have the talent too spread out.

you'd still only have a handful of contenders because there are only a handful of true superstars... but all these stars hopping around looking for easy titles is not a good look.

No max salaries but keep the cap, doesn't have to be a hard cap, that would mean teams can't keep their own drafted stars and that's no good either.

In the 90's and before a star stayed with his team his entire career, a guy was associated with that one team... you still had great teams like the Bulls, Pistons...etc...but it wasn't created by the stars themselves looking for an easy way to win, it was created by good FO's and of course some luck. and you didn't have teams knocking on 70 wins every year.

da ThRONe
07-04-2016, 01:50 PM
It's too extreme. The league doesn't want a star on each team which is what would happen. What's good for the NBA is like 4 legit championship contenders, 2 in each conference. A couple of dark horses in each. A couple solid up and coming teams in each. You get rid of the max and you'll have the talent too spread out.

The NFL has proven this to be wrong. What's most profitable is parity.

nycericanguy
07-04-2016, 01:53 PM
NBA won't ever have parity like other sports simply because one player in the NBA can change an entire franchise... but having 2 or 3 of those guys one team is just ridic.

hugepatsfan
07-04-2016, 01:55 PM
The NFL has proven this to be wrong. What's most profitable is parity.

Different sport. In the NBA elite players win. Like the poster above you said, you'd still only have a few teams competing. It wouldn't do anything to get rid of the lack of parity. It would still be only a few teams that have the elite players that compete. You'd just water down that group of teams. I'd rather watch 4 awesome teams compete with no one else close the 4 "meh" teams compete with no one else close.

Problem is we don't even have 4 awesome teams anymore. We got 1 that will just **** on everyone. We need some balance but IDK how to achieve it.

nycericanguy
07-04-2016, 01:59 PM
Different sport. In the NBA elite players win. Like the poster above you said, you'd still only have a few teams competing. It wouldn't do anything to get rid of the lack of parity. It would still be only a few teams that have the elite players that compete. You'd just water down that group of teams. I'd rather watch 4 awesome teams compete with no one else close the 4 "meh" teams compete with no one else close.

Problem is we don't even have 4 awesome teams anymore. We got 1 that will just **** on everyone. We need some balance but IDK how to achieve it.

well exactly... if you remove max salaries and spread out the 6-8 superstars, you'd have more teams with a legit shot... still no parity, but better to have 6 teams with a good chance than just watching GSW win 75 games every year...lol.

removing max salaries would go a long way toward stopping the team up mentality.

would also make the 2nd tier FA's more interesting as teams could actually bid on them instead of just offering "MAX"

da ThRONe
07-04-2016, 02:10 PM
Different sport. In the NBA elite players win. Like the poster above you said, you'd still only have a few teams competing. It wouldn't do anything to get rid of the lack of parity. It would still be only a few teams that have the elite players that compete. You'd just water down that group of teams. I'd rather watch 4 awesome teams compete with no one else close the 4 "meh" teams compete with no one else close.

Problem is we don't even have 4 awesome teams anymore. We got 1 that will just **** on everyone. We need some balance but IDK how to achieve it.

This makes little sense we saw Jordon lose until he got Pollen and the right role players. The reason LeBron left for MIA was because he didn't have the talent to win it all. So yes in hoops one player impacts the game more than any other team sport. However one player not even the games greatest can do it alone(especially not consistently). If a player has to choose between 50-75% of the cap in his bank account or winning as opposed to 30-33% of the cap many will choose the money and teams will have to decide whether or not to try and go with superstar and role players or a collection of stars or a team of borderline stars that fit well.

RLundi
07-04-2016, 02:19 PM
No. Fans are so stupid sometimes. They cried and screamed that the big markets teams were at an advantage because only they could offer the really big contracts, and it wasn't fair to poor small-markets teams, thereby affecting parity.

Now that the NBA bargaining agreement leveled the playing field by instituting max contracts, all of a sudden it's unfair? Fans need to stfu. Durant picked GS, get over it. More money would've been staying in OKC. He didn't even get a max contract for God's sake, it was just his decision. So let's all stop collectively crying about something the NBA has absolutely no control over.

da ThRONe
07-04-2016, 02:39 PM
No. Fans are so stupid sometimes. They cried and screamed that the big markets teams were at an advantage because only they could offer the really big contracts, and it wasn't fair to poor small-markets teams, thereby affecting parity.

Now that the NBA bargaining agreement leveled the playing field by instituting max contracts, all of a sudden it's unfair? Fans need to stfu. Durant picked GS, get over it. More money would've been staying in OKC. He didn't even get a max contract for God's sake, it was just his decision. So let's all stop collectively crying about something the NBA has absolutely no control over.

He signed and 1 and 1 deal so he can opted out again next year and get a super max after he cap jumps again.

Scoots
07-04-2016, 06:07 PM
I understand the point and the concerns, but I feel it's my duty to point out that the Warriors have no max contracts on their books. So it's not like it change the balance of power in the NBA much to ban max deals.

Vinylman
07-04-2016, 06:13 PM
He signed and 1 and 1 deal so he can opted out again next year and get a super max after he cap jumps again.

He has to get that under the cap though since they don't have his bird rights

Vinylman
07-04-2016, 06:18 PM
I understand the point and the concerns, but I feel it's my duty to point out that the Warriors have no max contracts on their books. So it's not like it change the balance of power in the NBA much to ban max deals.

A hard cap at the LT level means both GS and Cleve would have had to cut salary last year

You are also missing the point that Klay and draymonds deals last year would have been way higher with no cap

Klay would easily have been 8-10 million more a year

TRIUMPHATOR
07-04-2016, 06:46 PM
No. Fans are so stupid sometimes. They cried and screamed that the big markets teams were at an advantage because only they could offer the really big contracts, and it wasn't fair to poor small-markets teams, thereby affecting parity.

Now that the NBA bargaining agreement leveled the playing field by instituting max contracts, all of a sudden it's unfair? Fans need to stfu. Durant picked GS, get over it. More money would've been staying in OKC. He didn't even get a max contract for God's sake, it was just his decision. So let's all stop collectively crying about something the NBA has absolutely no control over.

You are indeed correct. "Fans are so stupid", now you need to ask why you are among them.

Durant's salary isn't adversely affected by him signing a lesser contract with GS. In fact, it only helps his personal endorsements. Winning means more money in the secondary market, which has now officially exceeded the actual employment market.

******NBA player endorsement deals are worth more than any team can offer in salary. It is easy to create several super teams.

LA_Raiders
07-04-2016, 07:00 PM
The NBA just ****ed itself up. You will see the ratings next year. I will only watch the conference finals; there is really no reason to watch the entire season if you already know the end results. **** this. This is the least competitive league in professional sports. Great job League, comish and players...

TRIUMPHATOR
07-04-2016, 07:13 PM
The NBA just ****ed itself up. You will see the ratings next year. I will only watch the conference finals; there is really no reason to watch the entire season if you already know the end results. **** this. This is the least competitive league in professional sports. Great job League, comish and players...

Not sure about the ratings, but this is a new dynamic in the business of the NBA.

Instead of bending over to broadcast networks, they need to implement a slot system as I suggested in another thread.

There is no such thing as parity in the NBA even with a hard cap.

A salary slot system is the only way to mediate things.

Scoots
07-04-2016, 07:30 PM
A hard cap at the LT level means both GS and Cleve would have had to cut salary last year

You are also missing the point that Klay and draymonds deals last year would have been way higher with no cap

Klay would easily have been 8-10 million more a year

The question was about abolishing max contracts ... not about the cap at all.

Vinylman
07-04-2016, 07:38 PM
The question was about abolishing max contracts ... not about the cap at all.

And I answered that

No way klay or draymond don't get much larger contracts last year if there isn't a max

So the point you were trying to make was irrelevant

Pfeifer
07-04-2016, 08:05 PM
I'd like to see a rule where each team can designate one player to get an extra $10M/year that doesn't count against the cap. But you have to commit to it each year of their whole contract.

I like that idea.

Chaotic98
07-04-2016, 08:38 PM
The NBA needs to follow the NHL with their cap. Have a floor and a hard ceiling cap where teams cannot pierce it. There should be no reason for a max contract. That needs to be abolished too. The only thing a max contract does is spread the wealth among the mid-top players while taking money from the elite players. If a Barnes, DeRozan, Parsons, Howard, Beal are singing the same max or near Max contract as a LeBron or a KD thats where the real issue lies.

Mid level players in the NHL get paid mid level contracts in comparison to the top talent. I hate to say this but the NHL actually has the best parity cap of all the major leagues in North America, something I'd never think I'd give Bettman credit for.

zookman65
07-04-2016, 08:48 PM
We don't even know how the Warriors will gel as a team. I am certain they will be good but they will still need to beat an eastern conference foe (most likely Cleveland) in the finals. I wont bet against Lebron, Tristan Thompson, Kyrie et al in a 7 game series. Kind of funny as most people that complain about the construct of the modern day NBA salary structure think back fondly to those days when everyone knew the Celtics would face the Lakers in the finals every year. Perhaps we will get several years of Cavs vs. Warriors
#Goodoledaysyndrome #strawmanissue

FlashBolt
07-04-2016, 08:57 PM
We don't even know how the Warriors will gel as a team. I am certain they will be good but they will still need to beat an eastern conference foe (most likely Cleveland) in the finals. I wont bet against Lebron, Tristan Thompson, Kyrie et al in a 7 game series. Kind of funny as most people that complain about the construct of the modern day NBA salary structure think back fondly to those days when everyone knew the Celtics would face the Lakers in the finals every year. Perhaps we will get several years of Cavs vs. Warriors
#Goodoledaysyndrome #strawmanissue

Well, if you think about it, it took a heroic effort from LeBron+Kyrie and an absolute tragic performance from Klay+Curry for Cavs to win.. a bit of luck as well with Green actually getting suspended, Bogut getting hurt, and Iggy getting hurt as well. Don't forget, Barnes was an absolute garbage player for them in the Finals. You're essentially replacing Barnes with Durant.. This team got better. No question about that. Will they repeat 73-9? Maybe, but who cares? This team is better. No ifs and buts about that.

DR_1
07-04-2016, 09:09 PM
It's too extreme. The league doesn't want a star on each team which is what would happen. What's good for the NBA is like 4 legit championship contenders, 2 in each conference. A couple of dark horses in each. A couple solid up and coming teams in each. You get rid of the max and you'll have the talent too spread out.

I'm not seeing how that is a problem

AntiG
07-04-2016, 09:11 PM
they should get rid of max and make it a hard cap the way the NFL is.

zookman65
07-04-2016, 09:13 PM
Well, if you think about it, it took a heroic effort from LeBron+Kyrie and an absolute tragic performance from Klay+Curry for Cavs to win.. a bit of luck as well with Green actually getting suspended, Bogut getting hurt, and Iggy getting hurt as well. Don't forget, Barnes was an absolute garbage player for them in the Finals. You're essentially replacing Barnes with Durant.. This team got better. No question about that. Will they repeat 73-9? Maybe, but who cares? This team is better. No ifs and buts about that.

Of course - by definition everything that preceded some eventuality is a confluence of events that led to that outcome. For instance if Klay Thompson doesn't have an absolute ridiculous hot streak in the 2nd half of game 6 even by his standards coupled with trash turnovers and easy missed shots by Durant and Westbrook then they don't even face the Cavs in the finals. Yes I agree they should be better but we will see how much and in what shape from an injury and chemistry perspective the Warriors go into the post season.

ldawg
07-04-2016, 09:16 PM
No they should not get rid of the max contract unless everything gets cheaper. the seats the food etc. The players are the product without them its no nba. The owners are making a killing.

Chaotic98
07-04-2016, 09:22 PM
No they should not get rid of the max contract unless everything gets cheaper. the seats the food etc. The players are the product without them its no nba. The owners are making a killing.

The max contract is what limits the top players... has nothing to do with the owners making money. Instead of a LeBron, KD or top player being forced to sign a max contract of 28mil/year, without a max it allows them to sign a 50mil/year deal if a team would offer them that. A max deal only limits what the top player could get on the open market not how much an owner makes.

zookman65
07-04-2016, 09:32 PM
I think its fine. NBA revenues and interest are exploding. Too much concern about their system that they collectively agreed to in terms of sharing the wealth more evenly than the other big team sports. I don't see the issue.

Crackadalic
07-04-2016, 11:30 PM
When you got mid level guys only being 4 million cheaper then the actual superstars then you have a problem. Idk about hard cap but get rid of max contracts so that guys like lebron can make 50 million a year taking most of the cap and truly build without star stacking

Scoots
07-05-2016, 03:05 AM
And I answered that

No way klay or draymond don't get much larger contracts last year if there isn't a max

So the point you were trying to make was irrelevant
Whether there was a max or not didn't matter as they didn't get max contracts. Why do you think they would make more of there was no limit when it's a limit they didn't hit?

If there was no cap it's a different story but that's not what we are talking about.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

da ThRONe
07-05-2016, 06:43 AM
Whether there was a max or not didn't matter as they didn't get max contracts. Why do you think they would make more of there was no limit when it's a limit they didn't hit?

If there was no cap it's a different story but that's not what we are talking about.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

The point is if you are a player on a great team and the max you can make is 20mil per why not take 18mil per to keep the team together? However if some team offers you 35mil per settling for 18mil per is leaving almost twice the money on the table.

zookman65
07-05-2016, 07:00 AM
Even if you eliminated max contracts it still wouldn't necessarily stop ring chasing if that is the point of eliminating this provision. A player could choose to take less to play somewhere else. As Malcom Gladwell pointed out (he is smarter than the average bear) recently on a Bill Simmons podcast the endorsement and off court money and other business opportunities is becoming so large for elite NBA players that they will increasingly do the calculus as to what's best for their business prospects thus rendering playing salary as one factor but not necessarily the determining factor.

Scoots
07-05-2016, 11:48 AM
The point is if you are a player on a great team and the max you can make is 20mil per why not take 18mil per to keep the team together? However if some team offers you 35mil per settling for 18mil per is leaving almost twice the money on the table.

Okay, I can see that. But that's essentially what Wade, Bosh, and LeBron did and only one of them was drafted by the Heat. It's certainly not unprecedented for players to want to stay together and build and the Warriors have earned loyalty in Klay by showing faith in him and in Green by drafting him, developing him, and supporting him to the point that his first FA contract was as big as it was. These guys didn't wait for offers or even seek them ... they signed within the first couple hours of free agency. The fact that the Warriors drafted all those guys, were treating them like a family, and were doing everything the "right" way had a major influence on the contracts they signed to keep it together. The fact that Curry was happy for them making WAY more than he makes and that according to insiders Curry's contract has literally never come up ... that stuff matters. Do you think it's the max contract that has kept the Spurs players in San Antonio at those salaries? I assume Timmy could have made 4 times as much if he left the Spurs, but he didn't want to leave and he wanted to have a good team to play on.

So, no, I don't believe the max contract alone is why the Warriors players accepted the contracts they took.

da ThRONe
07-05-2016, 12:04 PM
Okay, I can see that. But that's essentially what Wade, Bosh, and LeBron did and only one of them was drafted by the Heat. It's certainly not unprecedented for players to want to stay together and build and the Warriors have earned loyalty in Klay by showing faith in him and in Green by drafting him, developing him, and supporting him to the point that his first FA contract was as big as it was. These guys didn't wait for offers or even seek them ... they signed within the first couple hours of free agency. The fact that the Warriors drafted all those guys, were treating them like a family, and were doing everything the "right" way had a major influence on the contracts they signed to keep it together. The fact that Curry was happy for them making WAY more than he makes and that according to insiders Curry's contract has literally never come up ... that stuff matters. Do you think it's the max contract that has kept the Spurs players in San Antonio at those salaries? I assume Timmy could have made 4 times as much if he left the Spurs, but he didn't want to leave and he wanted to have a good team to play on.

So, no, I don't believe the max contract alone is why the Warriors players accepted the contracts they took.

Again no rule will be the end all. However making players have to decide between getting market value or winning while a select few will choose winning the majority most likely won't start "ring chasing" until later in their careers.

Scoots
07-05-2016, 12:43 PM
Again no rule will be the end all. However making players have to decide between getting market value or winning while a select few will choose winning the majority most likely won't start "ring chasing" until later in their careers.

Maybe, but humans fear change, and when you and your family (in Klay's case, his dog) are secure for the rest of your life already ... changing teams for more money holds less incentive than it used to. The difference between $1M and $11M is a lot bigger than the difference between $21M and $31M.

And I'm not for max contracts as they artificially deflate the value of superstars and inflate the value of everyone else. I just don't agree that the max is the only reason Thompson and Green signed the contracts they signed.