PDA

View Full Version : The Future of the NBA: The Hard-Cap



Shammyguy3
07-04-2016, 04:51 PM
Now, the league does not have a hard-cap. The current CBA:


The NBA and NBPA each have an option to terminate the CBA after its sixth season (i.e., on June 30, 2017) by notifying the other party on or before December 15, 2016. Under the CBA, all teams are subject to a Salary Cap and Minimum Team Salary for each season.

so, we essentially have one more season under this current CBA. Should the league push for a hard-cap like the NHL? With how crazy free agency has gotten, yet it still allowing teams to sign players to max contracts (looking at you GSW, Miami in the past), I think it would be best for the NBA to institute a hard-cap at some point.

Anyone agree?

Vinylman
07-04-2016, 05:18 PM
of course they should... it is assinine not to do it...


they should also get rid of all the exceptions except the vet minimum

the problem is that to institute it you have to have contracts that aren't guaranteed 100% so guys can be cut which won't fly with the NBAPA

until there are changes to the CBA there really is no point in tuning in until the conference finals at the earliest

warfelg
07-04-2016, 05:22 PM
I've heard of a cap+1 type deal.

Basically a hard cap set maybe at like $60 mil, and then one player that you can pay whatever you want. So if OKC wanted to make KD their +1, they could have paid him $50mil a year, given the other 14 players are in at a $60mil hard cap. The compromise: You can't use you're +1 on more than one player. Can only use it on someone that is currently on their roster.

Scoots
07-04-2016, 06:11 PM
Now, the league does not have a hard-cap. The current CBA:



so, we essentially have one more season under this current CBA. Should the league push for a hard-cap like the NHL? With how crazy free agency has gotten, yet it still allowing teams to sign players to max contracts (looking at you GSW, Miami in the past), I think it would be best for the NBA to institute a hard-cap at some point.

Anyone agree?

The Warriors have no max contracts on the books.

And the players will never accept a hard cap.

Right now the soft cap means only the owners lose out, not the players.

Shammyguy3
07-04-2016, 06:16 PM
The Warriors have no max contracts on the books.

And the players will never accept a hard cap.

Right now the soft cap means only the owners lose out, not the players.

No they don't have a full max but that's not the point. A hard cap league means it's tough to keep all of these players together (look at the Blackhawks in the NHL constantly having to turn the roster over because they can't afford all of their players)

Scoots
07-04-2016, 06:41 PM
No they don't have a full max but that's not the point. A hard cap league means it's tough to keep all of these players together (look at the Blackhawks in the NHL constantly having to turn the roster over because they can't afford all of their players)

I was just saying that this is sort of a reaction to the KD to the Warriors thing ... and they've done it without spending huge money thus far.

The hard cap would have to be set above where the tax line is now for it to work. If the next CBA is hard capped I'd be fine with it. In my experience the best teams rise to the top no matter the rules.

xnick5757
07-04-2016, 07:09 PM
no hard cap, uncap it entirely ala baseball.

players won't allow a true hard cap or the removal of the max salary, it's bad for the middle class

zookman65
07-04-2016, 09:24 PM
Why should the players agree to a CBA that would serve to potentially shift more money into the owners pocket. They would likely set a cap +1 that is much lower than today's cap and would open up the good chunk of owners who really don't care about winning as much as profitability and asset appreciation, to collude with other similar owners to hold elite salaries down in the +1 scenario. From my perspective I don't benefit from making the owners any wealthier than they already are. Too much sympathy for these billionaires who also get the benefit in a lot of cases of tax payer money paying for their stadiums and other public incentives. I think the current 50 50 split in basketball revenue is fine by me

sneak
07-04-2016, 09:30 PM
I just want parody.

Raps08-09 Champ
07-04-2016, 09:44 PM
Player would never agree, especially after they got screwed with the last lockout.

They should have a hard cap but have more freedom with contract structuring. That would allow for much more parity IMO. If you have guys like Durant able to get $50 million per year, would he really join GSW for $25 mil? Also have vesting options and all that ****. Hard cap though shoulld fairly reflect the money the NBA is getting though. So if the soft cap right now is $94 mil with structured contracts, have a $115 mil hard cap or something like that with no structured contracts.

Shammyguy3
07-04-2016, 10:38 PM
I think there should be a hard-cap, but there should not be max salaries. Like you say Raps, if Durant's true value is $50M and the Thunder want to pay him that, they should be allowed to. If Lebron warrants $40+M a year, he should get it.

The max is not good for anybody.

zookman65
07-05-2016, 07:13 AM
The Max is good for 90 percent of NBA players who are sharing what would go to the few truly elite players.

Secondly, since Durant's off court endorsements were 36 million last year who's to say he wouldn't make the best basketball decision anyway regardless of max/not max salary? The explosion in off court business income is rendering the incremental difference in salaries a moot point amongst the truly elite athletes:

http://www.forbes.com/profile/kevin-durant/

zookman65
07-05-2016, 07:17 AM
I just want parody.

Why? What makes parity the holy grail? Most think of the glory days of the NBA as the 80s Celtics vs. Lakers annual clash. Very little parity in those days as there was basically Lakers in west and Celtics and Pistons in East. I think stars make the NBA and I sensed from the excitement of young kids to Warriors style of ball that NBA interest amongst fans and future fans has never been more intense.

mudvayne387
07-05-2016, 08:17 AM
I just want parody.

But when was there any parody in the NBA ?

The Bulls,Lakers, Celtics and Spurs have won 44 combined titles.

People act is if today's NBA is so much different then in the past but it's not. Every year there's about 3-4 teams with a realistic shot at winning it all.

Vinylman
07-05-2016, 08:39 AM
The Warriors have no max contracts on the books.

And the players will never accept a hard cap.

Right now the soft cap means only the owners lose out, not the players.

most ******** logic ever... if there was no max contracts Klay and Draymond would be getting paid WAY more

Your inability to understand that in multiple threads is mind boggling.

If those guys are paid a free market rate then there is no money for Durant so it does apply to the Warriors situation.

IndyRealist
07-05-2016, 08:39 AM
Parity, not parody.

True parity means everything is random, all teams have a 50/50 chance of winning a game, and records never get broken because your opponent is just as good as you, every night. No one actually wants that. What people want is the illusion of parity, that in the preseason everybody thinks they have a shot, or are just one move away from it. Hate to break it to you, but the NBA has never had parity.

IndyRealist
07-05-2016, 08:48 AM
A hard cap will not eliminate super teams. Players will still ring chase because endorsement money outweighs salaries by a substantial margin, and winning rings only increases your endorsement oppitunities.

If the NBA wants stars to stay put, they need to go back to longer contracts so players spend most of their prime with the same team. 7 years for bird rights, 5 for free agents. Coupled with the rookie contract, a player stays with his drafting team for 9-11 years, so as old as 30.

Scoots
07-05-2016, 08:53 AM
most ******** logic ever... if there was no max contracts Klay and Draymond would be getting paid WAY more

Your inability to understand that in multiple threads is mind boggling.

If those guys are paid a free market rate then there is no money for Durant so it does apply to the Warriors situation.
If there are no max contracts but there is a cap then they wouldn't make more because the reason they took less than the max is the cap not the max. Your inability to understand that is surprising.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Vinylman
07-05-2016, 08:56 AM
A hard cap will not eliminate super teams. Players will still ring chase because endorsement money outweighs salaries by a substantial margin, and winning rings only increases your endorsement oppitunities.

If the NBA wants stars to stay put, they need to go back to longer contracts so players spend most of their prime with the same team. 7 years for bird rights, 5 for free agents. Coupled with the rookie contract, a player stays with his drafting team for 9-11 years, so as old as 30.

The Hard Cap in conjunction with no max limits easily prevents super teams

IF there was no max contract last summer and the summer before what do you think Klay and Draymond sign for per year? Klay easily gets $10 million more a year and Draymond probably $6-7 million more...

tell me how GS would even be able to sign KD then if a hard cap was established between the current cap and the LT line.

If people think the current model is ok wherein barring injury there is no competition that is fine but that is a **** basketball product over time and why most people realize that the NBA is no longer a competitive sport but simply entertainment.

Tony_Starks
07-05-2016, 09:16 AM
Never will happen.

Never should happen.

Toronto Homer
07-05-2016, 09:32 AM
I don't see the players accepting a hard cap, but I could see a steeper tax penalty in the future. It won't prevent super teams from forming, but it will make owners think long and hard about keeping them together long term through Bird Rights if the tax in tough enough.

BKLYNpigeon
07-05-2016, 09:42 AM
Cant do it.

If this happens then the league would have to abandon League Revenue Sharing. Thats implemented to help out the smaller market teams to make money to spend on players and stay competitive etc.

The money collected from Luxury Tax teams also gets distributed to all the teams who are under the salary cap evenly.


I think a lot of Small Market teams would be against this.


Players Union would be against this too.

nycericanguy
07-05-2016, 09:50 AM
Hard cap is not a good idea... it penalizes teams that draft well.

If I have a star on my roster and i draft a guy like Dray in the 2nd round, you telling me I can't keep him after 2 years because he's going to command a big contract and I'm already paying a big contract to my star?...

eliminate max salaries is all you need to do, with a soft cap.

also like the idea of being able to pay one guy over the cap as much as you want.

Ty22Mitchell
07-05-2016, 10:05 AM
Parity, not parody.

True parity means everything is random, all teams have a 50/50 chance of winning a game, and records never get broken because your opponent is just as good as you, every night. No one actually wants that. What people want is the illusion of parity, that in the preseason everybody thinks they have a shot, or are just one move away from it. Hate to break it to you, but the NBA has never had parity.

God forbid the NBA begins to model the NFL. Parity in the NFL has created such an impersonal product.
As others have pointed out, there have always only been a handful of teams in any one season cable of winning a ring. But i'd argue the story archs of the NBA are made stronger because such divides.

Ty22Mitchell
07-05-2016, 10:08 AM
Why is everyone against superteams on here? What is more awesome than a guy teaming up with friends (maybe from childhood) to conquer they're profession.

If you could replace coworkers with friends, wouldn't you?

Vinylman
07-05-2016, 10:18 AM
If there are no max contracts but there is a cap then they wouldn't make more because the reason they took less than the max is the cap not the max. Your inability to understand that is surprising.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

omfg... you really aren't very smart.... if there was no max restriction they aren't going to take less on their first big contract... they would have shopped themselves in the market to establish their value and then told GS to pay up...

the only reason guys take a slight discount on their first contract (ie less than max) is because they are RFA's and potentially get a 5th year...

this isn't rocket science

Scoots
07-05-2016, 11:27 AM
omfg... you really aren't very smart.... if there was no max restriction they aren't going to take less on their first big contract... they would have shopped themselves in the market to establish their value and then told GS to pay up...

the only reason guys take a slight discount on their first contract (ie less than max) is because they are RFA's and potentially get a 5th year...

this isn't rocket science

You are the one not getting it. The max is just a number that they can't be paid more than. The only reason they went under the number is because the team offered them that number. Are you saying that barring the max contract then the team would offer more to Klay knowing they had to pay Green the next year and Barnes/Ezeli the year after that and Curry the year after that with the same salary cap to deal with? I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. If they had offered Klay $10M more then they would have blown their cap up and they have said multiple times that they have a salary structure and they are working to build a team that can stay together for the long run and spending $40-$60M over the cap after those contracts were signed was not in the plan. The cap is why they got the contracts they got, not the max ... because they signed contracts under the max and for 4 years each ... not for 5.

DODGERS&LAKERS
07-05-2016, 11:57 AM
I think they should remove all caps and let free agents go where they want to go. Free market society. We have all now seen all NBA owners are swimming in money. There is no longer small vs big market. The tv money has subsidized all the teams.

Scoots
07-05-2016, 12:46 PM
I think they should remove all caps and let free agents go where they want to go. Free market society. We have all now seen all NBA owners are swimming in money. There is no longer small vs big market. The tv money has subsidized all the teams.

Yes. And we should do away with the draft too. Free market.

Of course people will say that that just means the big market teams will always win ... like the Yankees and Dodger are in the world series every year right? :)

IndyRealist
07-05-2016, 01:21 PM
So free markets don't really exist. They're a theoretical concept that never works at scale, because sooner or later someone gains market dominance and snuffs out the competition.

The baseball free agency rules are more arcane than the NBA. If there are rules, it's not a free market.

http://baseball.about.com/od/majorleaguebasics/a/freeagentprimer.htm

Scoots
07-05-2016, 05:49 PM
So free markets don't really exist. They're a theoretical concept that never works at scale, because sooner or later someone gains market dominance and snuffs out the competition.

The baseball free agency rules are more arcane than the NBA. If there are rules, it's not a free market.

http://baseball.about.com/od/majorleaguebasics/a/freeagentprimer.htm

FWIW, I was just parroting what the previous poster said. A true free market would absolutely fail in professional sports.

I've watched and followed a LOT of pro sports in my life and the only real solution to controlling the haves is a cap. I actually think the NBA's version of the cap with a penalty tax is more interesting than the typical hard cap because it helps the teams that are below the cap make extra money ... and in a few years that's going to be a lot of money to some teams.

warfelg
07-05-2016, 07:02 PM
I'm going to re-propose the idea from page 1, 3rd post that I presented:

Hard cap+1

What is it?

You have a hard cap for 14 players. 1 player falls outside of that cap and you can pay them however you want.

Why?

Teams that are smart and don't use the +1 would have the ability to chase these superstars that come free. What the NBAPA wants is to keep getting the mid-level guys paid because they already are. It's why they like a max contract.

What's the point?

Well 1 it would limit the options for superstar players for where they can go. The other part is it would soothe out the player distribution and really make players sacrifice to be on a "super team". So if a team uses their +1, and pays another guy $20million, it would leave them whatever remains on the cap to pay 13 players.

What about guaranteed contracts?

Well here's where things get interesting in my proposal. Teams would have two options: (1) Contracts would still be guaranteed, but since they are based on TV deals (and not all teams use all that's available to them) you can cut a player and only 50% of their contract would be on the books. Paying a guy $14mil a year and he stinks? Cut him and the next year he only hits you for a $7mil dead money charge. (2) A team can choose to buy out a player at the total value on his contract out of the owners pockets and his salary comes off the books. Paying a guy and you owe him $18 mil over 2 years? Owner cuts him an $18mil check and it's see ya.

How do you figure for rookies?

The cap every year has to rise by at least the cost of owning the #1 pick. This would give every team the ability to at least sign their pick. And the increase on that team's cap doesn't happen until they sign the rookie. Example: It's a $70mil cap. The Suns have pick number one. Pick 1 is making $7mil. Their cap figure doesn't become $77mil until the pick signs with them.

How does the +1 work?

A team can use their +1 on any non-rookie at any time. Once it is used that's it until the contract expires. There is no limit to this deal. The bill would be footed 50/50 up to $40mil from the NBA. So if this went into effect today and the Warriors wanted to +1 Steph to a 10 year $1billion contract ($100 mil a year) they could.

In this system a +1 player could be traded. But if he goes to another +1 team, the opposing teams +1 must be coming back. Or they could send him to a non-+1 team and their +1 opens up. Example: The Clippers used the +1 on Blake. But they trade him to Boston, who didn't use their +1. KD is a free agent, so the Clippers now have their +1 free to use on KD. Another Example: Bulls have Butler on a +1 deal and would like to move him. Toronto has Lowry on their +1. They could agree to a trade with whatever else, but Butler and Lowry must change teams.

I know in that situation it sounds like it limits player movement, and it should. Kinda. The +1 is an intended "star" designation. If I were the Nets right now I wouldn't be using it. Same for a team like Milwaukee. It gives them a way to get a star. But it makes it hard for stars to become available.

What about as time goes on?

As time comes on and competitive balance is restored a bit, you can expand this to a +2 situation to allow some teams to pay 2 stars whatever they want.

The idea of this is to prevent superteams because they just wouldn't be able to afford to put them all together. It's the major problem with the tax system. Some teams just DGAF and are willing to pay the NBA in order to win. Because the teams that win tend to make so much off of tickets, merchandise, concessions, ect to cover the tax.

zookman65
07-06-2016, 12:23 AM
The problem with all these suggestions is the notion that there is a problem in the first place. All these suggestions ignore the obvious that this superteam before the addition of Durant which already won a championship and had a 73 win season did so with a core of 3 that was drafted outside the top 5 picks meaning by definition of the intent of the plus 1 system they already have a collection of guys that shouldn't exist on one team, but they do. Secondly there is no proof that the current system is going to lead to perpetual dynasties. Where are all the dynasties of the past 20 years of free agency? Thirdly a plus 1 system assumes you will only get 1 elite player on a team however the truly elite players in the league have endorsement deals that in most cases exceed their on court salaries thus making it possible for the truly elite to make basketball decisions rather than money decisions. I think a lot of knee jerking going on without any reason to think the system needs to be fixed.

Scoots
07-06-2016, 01:14 AM
The soft cap with the tax benefits the the teams under the cap so there is a double monetary incentive to be under the cap. The teams speding huge money year after year will not be able to sustain it and will fall back to the pack. There have always been a few top teams in the NBA, no cap rule is going to change that. The current rules encourage teams to be under the cap without forcing them to lose home grown talent and penalize teams over the tax limit ... a lot. It's a good compromise.