PDA

View Full Version : An idea to help "competitive balance"



jphysics
07-13-2016, 04:07 PM
Sorry if this has been proposed before. I am not an expert.

Some people suggest it is a problem that multiple superstars can wind up on the same team. Owners try to use this to argue for lower salary caps various other restrictions.

Instead, what if we dramatically increase the individual salary max?

Players like Lebron, Durant, and Curry could easily command upwards of 50 million a year in the open market. If they are that expensive, no team will be able to afford to pay the salary for multiple top level players.

It is also could be considered more fair to the elite players. Lebron easily brings his franchise more money than the $30 million a year he is getting paid. A whole lot more. Let him get a share proportional to his contributions.

Maybe elite players will take pay cuts to play together, but I think it will be hard to take $20-30 million on a team with another star, when you could make $50 million on a team with no stars. That's a huge paycut.

The downside? Non-elite players will have to make less money, because more of the money will go to the superstars. No more 153 million dollar salaries for Conley. But really, should Michael Conley be getting paid as much as Lebron James?

Scoots
07-13-2016, 04:15 PM
There is a CBA thread, a rules thread, and a max contract thread that this would fit fine in.

The Max protects bad owners and front offices more than helps good front offices and owners. Making it more will just mean that lesser players end up at that tier too, except teams will have less flexibility once they do make that deal.

Chronz
07-13-2016, 04:21 PM
Nobody knows the cure all or curiaga for ff fans.

But yes your idea is the best I've heard

nycericanguy
07-13-2016, 04:27 PM
There is a CBA thread, a rules thread, and a max contract thread that this would fit fine in.

The Max protects bad owners and front offices more than helps good front offices and owners. Making it more will just mean that lesser players end up at that tier too, except teams will have less flexibility once they do make that deal.

I disagree, if you have a $100m cap and $50m max contracts, or just eliminate the max all together, do you think guys like Conley & Parsons would still get $50m? No way, and if a GM were to pay that, then he deserves to fail and be hamstrung.

MAX contracts are what allows super teams to form. If Durant could get $50m on the open market, would he really take $25m to go to GS? If so more power to him, but at least make the superstars feel it in their wallet.

MIA's big 3, would that have happened if Bosh, Wade & Lebron could all get 50m per year on the market? It was easy for them to take a couple million less, especially with FL taxes, but taking a 60% paycut to play with your friends? I imagine that would make guys think much harder about it.

To me it makes perfect sense, realistically if the max were $50m, no team could keep two max guys and still build a team, unless they have bird rights on one of them because you drafted them, in which case you should be allowed to keep a drafted star, or because you traded for them. But outright signing two max guys would be impossible.

Scoots
07-13-2016, 04:41 PM
I disagree, if you have a $100m cap and $50m max contracts, or just eliminate the max all together, do you think guys like Conley & Parsons would still get $50m? No way, and if a GM were to pay that, then he deserves to fail and be hamstrung.

MAX contracts are what allows super teams to form. If Durant could get $50m on the open market, would he really take $25m to go to GS? If so more power to him, but at least make the superstars feel it in their wallet.

MIA's big 3, would that have happened if Bosh, Wade & Lebron could all get 50m per year on the market? It was easy for them to take a couple million less, especially with FL taxes, but taking a 60% paycut to play with your friends? I imagine that would make guys think much harder about it.

To me it makes perfect sense, realistically if the max were $50m, no team could keep two max guys and still build a team, unless they have bird rights on one of them because you drafted them, in which case you should be allowed to keep a drafted star, or because you traded for them. But outright signing two max guys would be impossible.

He was saying that players who are not as good as LeBron shouldn't be making LeBron money. You know that there will be more than 1 player making $50M. There will be more than 10. And I guarantee not all 10 of them bring to the bottom line what LeBron brings. In every sport whenever there is a cap the majority aim at the cap rather than negotiate around below it. And players are even worse ... Player A says "I'm better than Player B and he's getting X!" then when Player A gets X+10 Player C says "I'm better than Player A so I should get X+20" ... and pretty soon there are 18 guys making $50M a year.

nycericanguy
07-13-2016, 04:48 PM
He was saying that players who are not as good as LeBron shouldn't be making LeBron money. You know that there will be more than 1 player making $50M. There will be more than 10. And I guarantee not all 10 of them bring to the bottom line what LeBron brings. In every sport whenever there is a cap the majority aim at the cap rather than negotiate around below it. And players are even worse ... Player A says "I'm better than Player B and he's getting X!" then when Player A gets X+10 Player C says "I'm better than Player A so I should get X+20" ... and pretty soon there are 18 guys making $50M a year.

for sure, there aren't enough true superstars to go around, but that's the way the league has always been. but at least teams can make their Reggie Miller true franchise players and not have them hop around. He might not be MJ, but he'll keep you competitive.

PhillyFaninLA
07-13-2016, 05:55 PM
contraction....too many teams, not enough real talent...you want competitive balance, reduce teams so your amount of talent matches your number of teams

PhillyFaninLA
07-13-2016, 05:55 PM
for the record the league won't or shouldn't contract, I was just responding to the topic and stating how

tredigs
07-13-2016, 06:05 PM
Your idea is a free market with no cap, obviously this has been discussed. I think you underestimate how much certain owners are willing to spend (and how little others are), and how many superstars would team up together. See: Baseball - Yankees/RedSox/Giants, etc vs A's, Astros, etc.

Vincent
07-13-2016, 06:38 PM
Owners will never agree in negotiations to increase max contract sizes because of how much risk a max contract will carry. Currently, max contracts don't necessarily cripple your team from putting forth a competitive product. Since NBA contracts are for the most part fully guaranteed (and count against the cap even when there are injuries), a multiyear injury from a max level player will cause irreversible damage to franchise.

IndyRealist
07-13-2016, 07:33 PM
If the max was like 50% of the cap, there would be 10-18 guys making that max and not deserving that much money. GMs will overpay to show that they're doing -something-. We see it every offseason. Raising the max won't change that.

What people forget is that the max contract amount is negotiated between the owners and the player's association, not the individual players. By giving a huge chunk of the money to a handful of guys, they are taking that money away from every other player. Zero chance that passes a vote.

Mell413
07-13-2016, 07:37 PM
Basketball is the one sport where an elite player means so much to the team. You normally need one of those guys to win. There's not many of those guys around so the one's that don't have one usually hover around mediocrity. Like the one poster mentioned contraction would help I think, but it won't happen.

Scoots
07-14-2016, 12:48 AM
for sure, there aren't enough true superstars to go around, but that's the way the league has always been. but at least teams can make their Reggie Miller true franchise players and not have them hop around. He might not be MJ, but he'll keep you competitive.

just to clarify, I said a $50M max would mean players not worth $50M would end up there anyhow, and you said you disagree, I clarified my point, and now you are agreeing that having a $50M max will result in more player not worth $50M making that money.

My point was whatever the max is more than the best players will get it ... you agree?

Scoots
07-14-2016, 12:56 AM
Basketball is the one sport where an elite player means so much to the team. You normally need one of those guys to win. There's not many of those guys around so the one's that don't have one usually hover around mediocrity. Like the one poster mentioned contraction would help I think, but it won't happen.

Yes, and how do most of those superstar players get on their teams? The draft. But people also want to flatten the draft so the worst teams have an even lower chance of drafting that superstar they need.

One issue with the last few CBAs as far as building franchises is concerned is that you draft a guy with the first overall pick, he's 18/19 years old, he will be adding muscle and maturing for the next 6 years or so and he's probably pretty raw because he's such an incredible natural athlete that he hasn't had to learn the game against guys who are essentially like he is. So you carefully teach him how to build his body, but don't rush it, don't want him developing issue from building mass too fast, and you have a couple coaches working just with him 5 days a week year round, and on his third year you have to decide if you want to pick up his option or not ... you think he COULD be a superstar but you don't know yet ... now 2 years down the line his rookie deal is done and he still hasn't put it together consistently and someone is offering him a max contract because they are so desperate for a superstar they will try to steal yours just to see ... but he's STILL just a kid.

Back in the day player development wasn't as rushed, wasn't as premature, and thanks to no free agency, the team decided if they wanted to keep a guy for the money he wanted or not.

The players might say they want parity but they don't care at all about parity as voters ... they care about long high paying careers, and they know they make more when they win titles.

The owners want the easiest marketing plan for the most money with the least outlay of money. And winning prints lots of money.

I think very little will change with the cap and with the max contracts.

lamzoka
07-14-2016, 02:31 AM
True Max = $50M
Max = $30M or whatever it is right now.

Each team is allowed to sign 1 player for the true max. $50M a year for 2+1 years. (team option). Players and teams cannot negotiate this contract any other way.

$50M a year gives guy like Lebron a chance to make up to $150M in 3 years.

2+1 gives teams a chance to get out that contract in just 2 seasons.

1 True Max per roster stops teams from signing 2 players for $50M a year each each and fill out the rest of the roster with scrubs.


For a player to be eligible for the "true max"

1- you must be in the league for a minimum of 5 years.
2- must be selected to play in the all star game twice in the past 2 seasons.

Or/and

3- won the regular season MVP.

Bigbadmoffo
07-14-2016, 02:40 AM
Sorry if this has been proposed before. I am not an expert.

Some people suggest it is a problem that multiple superstars can wind up on the same team. Owners try to use this to argue for lower salary caps various other restrictions.

Instead, what if we dramatically increase the individual salary max?

Players like Lebron, Durant, and Curry could easily command upwards of 50 million a year in the open market. If they are that expensive, no team will be able to afford to pay the salary for multiple top level players.

It is also could be considered more fair to the elite players. Lebron easily brings his franchise more money than the $30 million a year he is getting paid. A whole lot more. Let him get a share proportional to his contributions.

Maybe elite players will take pay cuts to play together, but I think it will be hard to take $20-30 million on a team with another star, when you could make $50 million on a team with no stars. That's a huge paycut.

The downside? Non-elite players will have to make less money, because more of the money will go to the superstars. No more 153 million dollar salaries for Conley. But really, should Michael Conley be getting paid as much as Lebron James?

I love the Idea but I think someone like Lebron would dominate the league if this where the case. I still think they should do it cause it would make the league much more competitive but the NBA has also become so popular because of super teams.

Scoots
07-14-2016, 12:35 PM
True Max = $50M
Max = $30M or whatever it is right now.

Each team is allowed to sign 1 player for the true max. $50M a year for 2+1 years. (team option). Players and teams cannot negotiate this contract any other way.

$50M a year gives guy like Lebron a chance to make up to $150M in 3 years.

2+1 gives teams a chance to get out that contract in just 2 seasons.

1 True Max per roster stops teams from signing 2 players for $50M a year each each and fill out the rest of the roster with scrubs.


For a player to be eligible for the "true max"

1- you must be in the league for a minimum of 5 years.
2- must be selected to play in the all star game twice in the past 2 seasons.

Or/and

3- won the regular season MVP.
More money the players like. Shorter contacts the players like. What's in it for the owners?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

da ThRONe
07-14-2016, 02:11 PM
More money the players like. Shorter contacts the players like. What's in it for the owners?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Actually the owners like shorter contracts. Especially when it's guaranteed money.