PDA

View Full Version : NBA Hard Cap?



More-Than-Most
06-01-2018, 02:17 AM
Tonight during the Interview Silver talked about the colangelo thing and also about this

--When asked about the league's feelings on the same teams playing in the Finals for the fourth consecutive season, Silver pointed out that the Warriorsand Cavs have the two highest payrolls in the league at $137 million each. He went so far as to raise the specter of a hard salary cap like the NFL employs that could potentially even out the league's competitive balance.


Good or bad in your opinion?

blams
06-01-2018, 02:22 AM
Great idea

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Giannis94
06-01-2018, 02:51 AM
Yeah let's lower the cap though to get salaries back in line and create more competition so teams can't afford 3 max players at current rates.

I'd be game if they set it at $100 mill

Scoots
06-01-2018, 02:59 AM
Yeah let's lower the cap though to get salaries back in line and create more competition so teams can't afford 3 max players at current rates.

I'd be game if they set it at $100 mill

Hard cap is fine, I don't know that it would make a real competitive difference in the NBA.

It can't happen without a new CBA.

There is NO WAY the NBAPA allows the money split to go down on their side by 25%+ with a $100M hard cap. It would have to be around $130M to get the money split right to start.

Giannis94
06-01-2018, 03:08 AM
Hard cap is fine, I don't know that it would make a real competitive difference in the NBA.

It can't happen without a new CBA.

There is NO WAY the NBAPA allows the money split to go down on their side by 25%+ with a $100M hard cap. It would have to be around $130M to get the money split right to start.

Then don't tell me the NBA cares about competition. They don't. Because if it did, you lower the cap and distribute the additional 30 mill per team evenly amongst the players. Otherwise the NBA is still just a 3-5 team league in which controversial officiating ultimately decides winners and losers.

warfelg
06-01-2018, 08:19 AM
Hard cap is fine, I don't know that it would make a real competitive difference in the NBA.

Wait what? You don't know how a hard cap would make a difference?

If the Max stays in and you have a hard cap, then you would have to be really good about building the remainder of the roster. Say it's a $100mil hard cap, $25mil max. With $50mil you would have to fill out the other 13-ish spots. That's an average of $3.84mil per roster spot.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 08:30 AM
I've been advocating for a hard cap for years. It should be done, it will absolutely make the NBA more competitive. However, it's unlikely and much harder to work than the NFL because of fully guaranteed contracts and players will never give that up.

Obviously it would require a new CBA.

Here's how I would work it.

Hard cap of $120M
Cap floor of $90M
Get rid of MAX contracts - teams can pay however much they want for a players services.
Instituting a hard cap removes all exceptions - except long term injuries

I would add 2 more teams which will help with the player shuffle for teams currently over the cap. This would also increase the total dollars for NBA players because you have 2 more full rosters to fill.
Seattle and Vegas (Let's role with the tide here)

All fully guaranteed contracts in existence will not be touched, but more 2 way and partially guaranteed contracts will become more commonly practiced for non elite players.

When the 2 teams come in the league, every team can protect 5 players. The 2 expansion teams can pick off of all remaining players on the roster. Side deals allowed to help clear the books. So teams like CLE and GS that are currently over the hard cap could send draft picks along with a guy like Iguadala to the expansion team so they take him off their roster allowing them to reduce their cap.

warfelg
06-01-2018, 08:44 AM
I still advocate for the Hard Cap +1 or Hard Cap +2. Basically a hard cap with 1 or 2 players exempt from effecting your cap.

If the Warriors want to have KD and Steph as their cap exempt players they can pay them whatever they want, but they have $100mil with 13 spots to fill out. And with no max contracts, if Klay and Dray both get $20 mil contracts, it leave $60mil to pay 11 players.

Where the risk with that comes is say a team like Atlanta hasn't used any exempt spots, when Klay is a FA they (ATL) could offer Klay $40mil a year, which is something GSW couldn't offer.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 08:46 AM
I've been advocating for a hard cap for years. It should be done, it will absolutely make the NBA more competitive. However, it's unlikely and much harder to work than the NFL because of fully guaranteed contracts and players will never give that up.

Obviously it would require a new CBA.

Here's how I would work it.

Hard cap of $120M
Cap floor of $90M
Get rid of MAX contracts - teams can pay however much they want for a players services.
Instituting a hard cap removes all exceptions - except long term injuries

I would add 2 more teams which will help with the player shuffle for teams currently over the cap. This would also increase the total dollars for NBA players because you have 2 more full rosters to fill.
Seattle and Vegas (Let's role with the tide here)

All fully guaranteed contracts in existence will not be touched, but more 2 way and partially guaranteed contracts will become more commonly practiced for non elite players.

When the 2 teams come in the league, every team can protect 5 players. The 2 expansion teams can pick off of all remaining players on the roster. Side deals allowed to help clear the books. So teams like CLE and GS that are currently over the hard cap could send draft picks along with a guy like Iguadala to the expansion team so they take him off their roster allowing them to reduce their cap.

Let's say hypothetically this happened this offseason. Here's how the league would need to respond

Teams in need of cutting cap
CLE - Number includes LeBron, if he leaves they're fine, if he re-signs some combo of Hill, TT, JR, Clarkson goes
OKC - Includes Melo and PG.
TOR - 1 of Lowry, DeMare, Ibaka, Jonas has to go
WAS - They could trade Mahnimi and Gortat to get under

Teams right up against the cap
LAC
DET
MIN
MIA
CHA

Teams that would need to add payroll
2 expansion teams - Thats' $180M minimum added
LAL
CHI
DAL
ATL
PHI
SAC
BRK
HOU

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 08:48 AM
I still advocate for the Hard Cap +1 or Hard Cap +2. Basically a hard cap with 1 or 2 players exempt from effecting your cap.

If the Warriors want to have KD and Steph as their cap exempt players they can pay them whatever they want, but they have $100mil with 13 spots to fill out. And with no max contracts, if Klay and Dray both get $20 mil contracts, it leave $60mil to pay 11 players.

Where the risk with that comes is say a team like Atlanta hasn't used any exempt spots, when Klay is a FA they (ATL) could offer Klay $40mil a year, which is something GSW couldn't offer.

I don't see how this make the league any more competitive.

You want to prevent situations where 2 of the top 5 players are on the same team, not encourage it.

warfelg
06-01-2018, 09:07 AM
I don't see how this make the league any more competitive.

You want to prevent situations where 2 of the top 5 players are on the same team, not encourage it.

but having a league were the 30 best players are on 30 different teams doesn't lead to a great situation either.

If 2 of the top 5 players chose to do that, that's fine. But it also means that there's a team with 2 open exempt spots to poach your other best players.

In the Warriors example let's say they get $100mil + 2. Curry and Durant get exempt. Based on $100mil hard cap, the remaining contracts would put them $7,461,207 over the cap with 7 players. So if they ditched say Iggy in this situation, they would be ~$6.5 mil under the cap with needing at least 4 players, and at most 7 players.

So even if they rocked with 12 players they would have:
Curry - Livingston
Klay - ($1mil player)
Durant - Looney
Green - Bell
Jones - ($1mil player)
Rookie Contract, and 1 more about $1.5mil player.

Yeah they get to keep their main 4 players, but the rest of that team is so dinged down to where an injury or foul trouble makes is much harder for them.

HandsOnTheWheel
06-01-2018, 09:12 AM
Not sure it would fix the league, though it would be a start. Sounds like Silver is trying to cover his *** here bc of how many people are complaining about the same **** every year. Why did it take so damn long for this to come to realization? I'm not buying this till I see it though with freaky Silver at the top.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 09:16 AM
but having a league were the 30 best players are on 30 different teams doesn't lead to a great situation either.

If 2 of the top 5 players chose to do that, that's fine. But it also means that there's a team with 2 open exempt spots to poach your other best players.

In the Warriors example let's say they get $100mil + 2. Curry and Durant get exempt. Based on $100mil hard cap, the remaining contracts would put them $7,461,207 over the cap with 7 players. So if they ditched say Iggy in this situation, they would be ~$6.5 mil under the cap with needing at least 4 players, and at most 7 players.

So even if they rocked with 12 players they would have:
Curry - Livingston
Klay - ($1mil player)
Durant - Looney
Green - Bell
Jones - ($1mil player)
Rookie Contract, and 1 more about $1.5mil player.

Yeah they get to keep their main 4 players, but the rest of that team is so dinged down to where an injury or foul trouble makes is much harder for them.

How is it going to be much harder for them? They're heads and tails above everyone else right now because of their top 4. Not because of their 5-8 guys.

The goal with a hard cap is to spread talent around. This does not accomplish that. Look league wide. Nothing is really going to change

HOU is going to exempt Harden and CP3. Their roster stays the same with room to add another guy.

OKC could exempt Westbrook and PG13 and have room to add another guy.

TOR can exempt Demare and Lowry and not have to move anyone

NO can exempt Cousins and AD and add someone

How is it changing anything other than giving teams opportunity to overpay depth pieces? All the top players are going to stay put. If that's what we want, just leave the soft cap.

HandsOnTheWheel
06-01-2018, 09:27 AM
I've been advocating for a hard cap for years. It should be done, it will absolutely make the NBA more competitive. However, it's unlikely and much harder to work than the NFL because of fully guaranteed contracts and players will never give that up.

Obviously it would require a new CBA.

Here's how I would work it.

Hard cap of $120M
Cap floor of $90M
Get rid of MAX contracts - teams can pay however much they want for a players services.
Instituting a hard cap removes all exceptions - except long term injuries

I would add 2 more teams which will help with the player shuffle for teams currently over the cap. This would also increase the total dollars for NBA players because you have 2 more full rosters to fill.
Seattle and Vegas (Let's role with the tide here)

All fully guaranteed contracts in existence will not be touched, but more 2 way and partially guaranteed contracts will become more commonly practiced for non elite players.

When the 2 teams come in the league, every team can protect 5 players. The 2 expansion teams can pick off of all remaining players on the roster. Side deals allowed to help clear the books. So teams like CLE and GS that are currently over the hard cap could send draft picks along with a guy like Iguadala to the expansion team so they take him off their roster allowing them to reduce their cap.

Like where this is going.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 09:36 AM
Like where this is going.

Is that even a question? I don't even understand the point of this comment...

warfelg
06-01-2018, 09:47 AM
How is it going to be much harder for them? They're heads and tails above everyone else right now because of their top 4. Not because of their 5-8 guys.

The goal with a hard cap is to spread talent around. This does not accomplish that. Look league wide. Nothing is really going to change

HOU is going to exempt Harden and CP3. Their roster stays the same with room to add another guy.

OKC could exempt Westbrook and PG13 and have room to add another guy.

TOR can exempt Demare and Lowry and not have to move anyone

NO can exempt Cousins and AD and add someone

How is it changing anything other than giving teams opportunity to overpay depth pieces? All the top players are going to stay put. If that's what we want, just leave the soft cap.

Houston: Would have spent $48,466,131; meaning that they would have $51.6 mil roughly, to try to retain Capela, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Tarik Black, Trevor Ariza, and Gerald Green. They would have 8 players, and 6 spots to fill. Say there's a team with an exempt spot and they offer Capela $20mil. The Rockets could bring him back, but that would leave $31mil for 5 spots. They aren't retaining Moute, Ariza, and bringing in 3 more players for $31 mil without sacrifices.

OKC: If they put Brodie and PG13 as exempt players, they spent $81,485,361 on 8 other players. That's $18.5mil to spend on 4 players, with holes at PF and PG to fill out.

TOR: Sure they are one of the few teams that actually make out great in this, as they would have about $32mil to spend on filling out 3 roster spots.

NO: $25mil to try to retain Rondo, and 2 other roster spots.

Don't like the +2 method, go with the +1 and a $120mil cap.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 10:06 AM
Houston: Would have spent $48,466,131; meaning that they would have $51.6 mil roughly, to try to retain Capela, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Tarik Black, Trevor Ariza, and Gerald Green. They would have 8 players, and 6 spots to fill. Say there's a team with an exempt spot and they offer Capela $20mil. The Rockets could bring him back, but that would leave $31mil for 5 spots. They aren't retaining Moute, Ariza, and bringing in 3 more players for $31 mil without sacrifices.

OKC: If they put Brodie and PG13 as exempt players, they spent $81,485,361 on 8 other players. That's $18.5mil to spend on 4 players, with holes at PF and PG to fill out.

TOR: Sure they are one of the few teams that actually make out great in this, as they would have about $32mil to spend on filling out 3 roster spots.

NO: $25mil to try to retain Rondo, and 2 other roster spots.

Don't like the +2 method, go with the +1 and a $120mil cap.

Why not just do a solid hard cap? It makes way more sense. You have the same budget as every team. Spend your money wisely.

warfelg
06-01-2018, 10:09 AM
Why not just do a solid hard cap? It makes way more sense. You have the same budget as every team. Spend your money wisely.

Because I don't think NBA players will ever agree with that. And Owners will always want a way to keep their superstar.

If you do no max and hard cap, and a team pays LeBron $60mil a year, they would have LeBron and a ****** team. But with an exempt, you actually have a chance at putting a team around that guy.

Dade County
06-01-2018, 10:10 AM
In favor of a Hard Cap immediately!

Also Crack Down on moving screens and traveling by adding an extra ref (that will be his main job...I don't care how many times he has to blow that whistle).

And this is going to be out there lol.. But I don't like that players can foul out of a game. I rather when the player gets his/her 6 foul call, the other team gets two free throws and the ball out of bounds each time that player commits a foul.

I never liked when Shaq had to sit down when he got two quick foul calls against him, in the 1st. Let the players which are the main product play.

crewfan13
06-01-2018, 10:13 AM
Problem is to make a hard cap truly successful, you almost need non-guaranteed contracts. If you have guaranteed deals, a team can have 1 or 2 major injuries that basically lock them in with no opportunity to improve the team.

And also having guaranteed contracts would almost certainly keep teams somewhat comfortably under the cap or encourage lots of 1 year deals. You basically always need to maintain financial flexibility, so very few teams would actually sign right up against the cap unless they have a couple deals expiring next offseason.

I donít see this happening, but I would prefer the nba move to a hard cap situation with non-guaranteed deals and no max contracts. But at the end of the day, I donít see that happening and I donít think it actually helps parity that much. The nba still comes down to stars. So even if the hard cap were to remove Durant for example from GS, youíre still looking at Houston, Cleveland, GS and probably whatever team Durant is on at title contenders. Boston is maybe in the conversation, but a hard cap, especially when coupled with expansion, probably makes it harder for a team like Boston to compile of bunch of really, really good players. (And Boston might be unique, since some of their really good players are on rookie deals, but it might hurt that strategy all in all).

desertlakeshow
06-01-2018, 10:31 AM
Parity sucks.

If you guys want parity put the names of all of the teams in a bowl and draw names to see who picks players first.

Then put all of the players names in a bowl and let the above winning team draw the first player and so on.

Redo this every year.

Parity for you.

Bad product for all.

Giannis94
06-01-2018, 10:37 AM
Lord forgive we have some competition in the league. With good reffiing.

Scoots
06-01-2018, 10:40 AM
Then don't tell me the NBA cares about competition. They don't. Because if it did, you lower the cap and distribute the additional 30 mill per team evenly amongst the players. Otherwise the NBA is still just a 3-5 team league in which controversial officiating ultimately decides winners and losers.

The NBA DOESN'T care about competition. They care about selling the product. But more than selling the product they are required to work out a CBA by the government, and the CBA includes a fixed money split, so the only way for that split to change is if the players association actually want to give the owners 25% of their money. There is NO way that happens.

HunterNRoss
06-01-2018, 10:41 AM
If the NBA were to add a hard cap they could bring back a version of the Amnesty clause as to avoid issues with guaranteed deals bogging down teams with a hard cap. Still have to pay the player their remaining contract but no longer counts against the cap nor takes up the roster spot.

Scoots
06-01-2018, 10:41 AM
Wait what? You don't know how a hard cap would make a difference?

If the Max stays in and you have a hard cap, then you would have to be really good about building the remainder of the roster. Say it's a $100mil hard cap, $25mil max. With $50mil you would have to fill out the other 13-ish spots. That's an average of $3.84mil per roster spot.

Because it WON'T be a $100M cap, it will more likely be $130M+ because the CBA money split isn't going to go down.

And it's more about how regardless of the rules the better run teams tend to win.

Scoots
06-01-2018, 10:48 AM
If the NBA were to add a hard cap they could bring back a version of the Amnesty clause as to avoid issues with guaranteed deals bogging down teams with a hard cap. Still have to pay the player their remaining contract but no longer counts against the cap nor takes up the roster spot.

The players would have to give up guaranteed contracts for a hard cap.

BKLYNpigeon
06-01-2018, 10:51 AM
Never going to happen.

warfelg
06-01-2018, 10:55 AM
Because it WON'T be a $100M cap, it will more likely be $130M+ because the CBA money split isn't going to go down.

And it's more about how regardless of the rules the better run teams tend to win.

The 'cap' this year was only about $101mil. Why would it jump that high if that's all the CBA covers?

LongIslandIcedZ
06-01-2018, 10:58 AM
Hard cap + no max salary?

I'd sign up for that.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 11:06 AM
Because I don't think NBA players will ever agree with that. And Owners will always want a way to keep their superstar.

If you do no max and hard cap, and a team pays LeBron $60mil a year, they would have LeBron and a ****** team. But with an exempt, you actually have a chance at putting a team around that guy.

I doubt LeBron would do it because he wouldn't want a **** team. So I disagree, I don't think that's true.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 11:08 AM
The players would have to give up guaranteed contracts for a hard cap.

Not necessarily. I think there's a work around. You can just shorter contracts. More team and player options. And the NBA already has their version of non guaranteed contracts. They would become more common

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 11:11 AM
The NBA DOESN'T care about competition. They care about selling the product. But more than selling the product they are required to work out a CBA by the government, and the CBA includes a fixed money split, so the only way for that split to change is if the players association actually want to give the owners 25% of their money. There is NO way that happens.

I think they care about competition, but they just care more about maximizing profits. Why can't they both be accomplished?

Adding 2 teams. Keeping guaranteed contracts and a cap of $120 and floor of $90M is a win win for both sides. We're not losing any money spent on FA, actually there would be more. There would be more competition and the fan base would be grown with 2 additional teams

Vinylman
06-01-2018, 12:14 PM
Hard cap is fine, I don't know that it would make a real competitive difference in the NBA.

It can't happen without a new CBA.

There is NO WAY the NBAPA allows the money split to go down on their side by 25%+ with a $100M hard cap. It would have to be around $130M to get the money split right to start.

how do you figure? The cap is based on BRI... that wouldn't change... the difference is that the reallocation at the end of the year would probably raise salaries instead of lowering them. You aren't under the impression that these guys actually get paid what their reported salaries are... do you?

HandsOnTheWheel
06-01-2018, 12:16 PM
Is that even a question? I don't even understand the point of this comment...

Is what a question? I'm agreeing with your post..

IndyRealist
06-01-2018, 12:42 PM
Then don't tell me the NBA cares about competition. They don't. Because if it did, you lower the cap and distribute the additional 30 mill per team evenly amongst the players. Otherwise the NBA is still just a 3-5 team league in which controversial officiating ultimately decides winners and losers.

The NBA doesn't control the cap. It has to be negotiated with the player's union. Chris Paul and Lebron James control the union. Do you think they want a hard cap that limits their individual salaries, their ability to change teams, and their ability to bring in teammates to help them? Do you think the star players of two of the three superteams want to prevent superteams?

IndyRealist
06-01-2018, 12:48 PM
how do you figure? The cap is based on BRI... that wouldn't change... the difference is that the reallocation at the end of the year would probably raise salaries instead of lowering them. You aren't under the impression that these guys actually get paid what their reported salaries are... do you?

The problem with reallocation is that the guys who control the NBAPA are the guys who would lose the most money.

Giannis94
06-01-2018, 12:50 PM
The NBA doesn't control the cap. It has to be negotiated with the player's union. Chris Paul and Lebron James control the union. Do you think they want a hard cap that limits their individual salaries, their ability to change teams, and their ability to bring in teammates to help them? Do you think the star players of two of the three superteams want to prevent superteams?

Lebron has been GM pretty much everywhere he went.

Vinylman
06-01-2018, 01:49 PM
The problem with reallocation is that the guys who control the NBAPA are the guys who would lose the most money.

I understand that but it already happens as you have pointed out in the past.

IndyRealist
06-01-2018, 02:20 PM
I understand that but it already happens as you have pointed out in the past.

Some reallocation happens, yes. But the guys who's salaries push payrolls over the cap are they guys who make the most money, and also happen to run the union. A hard cap with reallocation directly takes money from them and gives it to the rest of the players, because they're the guys who will have to take smaller contracts to make a hard cap work.

Regardless, Lebron and Paul are not giving up their ability to form superteams, which is what a hard cap would be for.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 02:23 PM
The NBA doesn't control the cap. It has to be negotiated with the player's union. Chris Paul and Lebron James control the union. Do you think they want a hard cap that limits their individual salaries, their ability to change teams, and their ability to bring in teammates to help them? Do you think the star players of two of the three superteams want to prevent superteams?

A hard cap doesn't necessarily limit their individual salaries. They could potentially make more if they get rid of 'MAX' contracts

I don't see how a hard cap eliminates or restricts their ability to change teams from what's current.

I doubt they want to prevent super teams, but if it equals more money individually and for other players to not have a "max" they can earn, I would think that's a worthy concession here. It would make their product better on the court, which means more fans, more viewers, higher ratings, more money for everyone. It's a worthy sacrifice. And if they truly are the best players, they should still have better odds at winning anyways.

IndyRealist
06-01-2018, 03:11 PM
A hard cap doesn't necessarily limit their individual salaries. They could potentially make more if they get rid of 'MAX' contracts

I don't see how a hard cap eliminates or restricts their ability to change teams from what's current.

I doubt they want to prevent super teams, but if it equals more money individually and for other players to not have a "max" they can earn, I would think that's a worthy concession here. It would make their product better on the court, which means more fans, more viewers, higher ratings, more money for everyone. It's a worthy sacrifice. And if they truly are the best players, they should still have better odds at winning anyways.

A hard cap limits individual salaries by preventing teams from exceeding the cap to retain their player. So, for a current max player to make the same money, he would have to go to a team he doesn't necessarily want to go to. So to stay in the same situation, he has to take less.

A hard cap limits the ability to change teams by preventing teams from bloating their salary over the cap and then using that salary to trade for the players they want. OKC could not have traded for Paul George and Melo if they didn't already have Oladipo and Kanter, for instance.

Right now, players like Chris Paul and Lebron can have their cake and eat it too. They get paid a huge chunk of money and they still get to stack their teams. Those players control the NBAPA. It should not be difficult to see that it would be extremely difficult to get a hard cap in the next CBA.

Chronz
06-01-2018, 03:13 PM
Then don't tell me the NBA cares about competition. They don't. Because if it did, you lower the cap and distribute the additional 30 mill per team evenly amongst the players. Otherwise the NBA is still just a 3-5 team league in which controversial officiating ultimately decides winners and losers.

I would kill to have that 3 to 5 league back

Chronz
06-01-2018, 03:14 PM
Hard cap is fine, I don't know that it would make a real competitive difference in the NBA.

It can't happen without a new CBA.

There is NO WAY the NBAPA allows the money split to go down on their side by 25%+ with a $100M hard cap. It would have to be around $130M to get the money split right to start.

How about if you can waive players without counting them in the cap total.

IndyRealist
06-01-2018, 03:16 PM
How about if you can waive players without counting them in the cap total.

I don't think small market teams would go for that, and when the owners vote the big market teams are outnumbered.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 03:18 PM
A hard cap limits individual salaries by preventing teams from exceeding the cap to retain their player. So, for a current max player to make the same money, he would have to go to a team he doesn't necessarily want to go to. So to stay in the same situation, he has to take less.

Still not true. If the team wants them back they can move players to create the cap space. If the team doesn't deem them important enough to, I don't see how it's really different than now. But if LeBron wants $50M, It's likely that team will create the necessary cap space for him. If they don't, he can make $50M somewhere else. He'd only be losing money if he chose to. No different than now. KD took less because he wanted to go to GS


A hard cap limits the ability to change teams by preventing teams from bloating their salary over the cap and then using that salary to trade for the players they want. OKC could not have traded for Paul George and Melo if they didn't already have Oladipo and Kanter, for instance.

The hard cap isn't preventing anything in this scenario. The GM's management of his cap space is.


Right now, players like Chris Paul and Lebron can have their cake and eat it too. They get paid a huge chunk of money and they still get to stack their teams. Those players control the NBAPA. It should not be difficult to see that it would be extremely difficult to get a hard cap in the next CBA.

But they could be paid more, lots more, in a capped league. It's conceivable that if there was no max contract, LeBron would be making $50M a season.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 03:19 PM
How about if you can waive players without counting them in the cap total.

That would be pointless. It defeats the purpose of a hard cap.

warfelg
06-01-2018, 03:30 PM
I want to know where people come up with the $130mil cap number for a hard cap. There's only 3 teams spending over $130mil. Average is about $108mil.

IndyRealist
06-01-2018, 03:35 PM
Still not true. If the team wants them back they can move players to create the cap space. If the team doesn't deem them important enough to, I don't see how it's really different than now. But if LeBron wants $50M, It's likely that team will create the necessary cap space for him. If they don't, he can make $50M somewhere else. He'd only be losing money if he chose to. No different than now. KD took less because he wanted to go to GS


The hard cap isn't preventing anything in this scenario. The GM's management of his cap space is.



But they could be paid more, lots more, in a capped league. It's conceivable that if there was no max contract, LeBron would be making $50M a season.

All you are addressing is the money, not the situations and advantages the players get now that would be lost in a hard cap league.

warfelg
06-01-2018, 03:49 PM
All you are addressing is the money, not the situations and advantages the players get now that would be lost in a hard cap league.

I've said it a few times now and everyone says it will never happen, but it's going to take a full season strike/lockout for a hard cap to hit.

IndyRealist
06-01-2018, 03:58 PM
I've said it a few times now and everyone says it will never happen, but it's going to take a full season strike/lockout for a hard cap to hit.

I've been responding strictly from the perspective of the NBAPA. Do you feel like the NBA has the will to lockout for an entire season and lose like $8 billion plus alienate fans, to push for a hard cap? I don't particularly have an opinion on that.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 04:00 PM
I want to know where people come up with the $130mil cap number for a hard cap. There's only 3 teams spending over $130mil. Average is about $108mil.

A cap is just a spending limit. Doesn't mean everyone has to spend up to it. I think $120-130M works. Players aren't going to accept a reduction in total money. So you couldn't make the cap less than the average

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 04:02 PM
All you are addressing is the money, not the situations and advantages the players get now that would be lost in a hard cap league.

Money is the great equalizer. And I don't really see anything lost. Even the super teams now players are accepting less money to make it happen (LBJ and Bosh did in MIA, KD did in GS). So again, how's it any different. Same choice available. You can take max dollar or take less and join up with some friends.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 04:04 PM
I've been responding strictly from the perspective of the NBAPA. Do you feel like the NBA has the will to lockout for an entire season and lose like $8 billion plus alienate fans, to push for a hard cap? I don't particularly have an opinion on that.

I don't think an entire season. Once guys start missing paychecks, the lower level guys, they start getting pretty loud in the ear of the guys representing them.

BKLYNpigeon
06-01-2018, 04:06 PM
so what if you have 5 allstars who all take less to play with each other and they build a Super Team?

do we change the rules again?

warfelg
06-01-2018, 04:09 PM
I've been responding strictly from the perspective of the NBAPA. Do you feel like the NBA has the will to lockout for an entire season and lose like $8 billion plus alienate fans, to push for a hard cap? I don't particularly have an opinion on that.

No, which is why a hard cap will always be a pipe dream. It starts with the owners wanting it, of a groundswell of mid-level NBA players wanting it and pushing the star players who represent them to change it.

And the rank and file players won't change. For every super team created that's 2-3 other teams that have the ability to give a guy like Barnes, Whiteside, or Milsap a max or big contracts. So guys like that won't complain. The older vets won't complain because they keep getting jobs to be on the bench for these super teams.

So it's going to take the lower owners, and some teams that spend years upon years at the bottom to start to push other owners who haven't been in a deep playoff run in a long time to start the groundswell from their end that a hard cap will mean more teams in the championship series's, more potential champions, which means more invigorated fan bases, which would mean higher ratings, and higher TV contracts.

warfelg
06-01-2018, 04:11 PM
I don't think an entire season. Once guys start missing paychecks, the lower level guys, they start getting pretty loud in the ear of the guys representing them.

Nope because that already happened and they caved on what the top guys wanted. A higher max contract age, the super max, and the bigger maxes for older players.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 04:15 PM
Nope because that already happened and they caved on what the top guys wanted. A higher max contract age, the super max, and the bigger maxes for older players.

So they cant learn from past failures? They're just going to keep doing the same thing...A lot of the lower level players in the league were unhappy with the last CBA because really the top guys won, that's about it. Wait until this offseason when most of the FA money is dried up from the last 2 offseason when they had these huge salary cap number jumps. Guys who were good but not great were getting paid massive money. Now that's not going to happen this offseason, and the guys that missed out on it solely due to timing, are not going to be happy.

Oakmont_4
06-01-2018, 04:17 PM
so what if you have 5 allstars who all take less to play with each other and they build a Super Team?

do we change the rules again?

I'd be shocked if 5 guys are essentially going to take a 50+% cut in pay. 10-20% that's understandable, but 50-75%....No way.

warfelg
06-01-2018, 04:21 PM
So they cant learn from past failures? They're just going to keep doing the same thing...A lot of the lower level players in the league were unhappy with the last CBA because really the top guys won, that's about it. Wait until this offseason when most of the FA money is dried up from the last 2 offseason when they had these huge salary cap number jumps. Guys who were good but not great were getting paid massive money. Now that's not going to happen this offseason, and the guys that missed out on it solely due to timing, are not going to be happy.

I've been saying that for a while. They needed to do the smoothing of the cap and they didn't. But that didn't have much to do with the CBA. The issue there was the cap smoothing was sold to rank and file as "owners want to withhold money from you", not "teams are going to spend a ton that year and have little left for later years".

Giannis94
06-01-2018, 04:45 PM
I would kill to have that 3 to 5 league back

That's so true. Just let everyone be a free agent and let the stars form their own 5 team super league. Let them play a schedule of 8 games and then playoffs. Everyone else to the g league earning their current salaries. Then warriors fans will complain life isn't fair.

mike_noodles
06-01-2018, 05:08 PM
Remove individual player caps and introduce a hard cap. Things would be a lot more interesting than watching the Hangover IV

mrblisterdundee
06-01-2018, 10:04 PM
There is NO WAY the NBAPA allows the money split to go down on their side by 25%+ with a $100M hard cap. It would have to be around $130M to get the money split right to start.

Sounds about right. It would be renegotiated with each CBA. I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted upwards $150 million to start with.

Jeffy25
06-01-2018, 10:05 PM
I'm against all cap systems, and believe league parity is best increased by having a free market.

BKLYNpigeon
06-02-2018, 10:53 AM
If they can agree to a Hard Cap it will be 5 years from now at the next CBA

Vinylman
06-02-2018, 12:23 PM
Because it WON'T be a $100M cap, it will more likely be $130M+ because the CBA money split isn't going to go down.

And it's more about how regardless of the rules the better run teams tend to win.

you are all hung up on the cap... it is just a way to administer the distribution of the BRI share for the players... like I said before the same amount gets paid out to the players each year based on BRI... their contracted salaries are nothing more than shares to allocate the pool of BRI. Set the cap at whatever you want... it is the least important part of a hard cap.

TylerSL
06-02-2018, 02:05 PM
Yes, the league should go to a hard cap. The current NBA Salary Cap structure is very flawed and needs significant reforms. Setting a hard cap would be better than the status quo of being able to go above the cap to re sign your own players, and then having to pay a tax for doing so. It would be far less complicated if the league made the tax line the hard cap. For 17-18' season, the luxury tax was set at $119 million.

But while we are on the subject, there is a lot more than league can do with the cap and how contracts are structured. The NBA should get rid of maximum salaries, as they are bad for several reasons. One is they put a cap on how much the best players can earn. The NBA has made silly exceptions to the max deal, offering things such as "super max" if players meet certain requirements, but it doesn't do the best players justice. Lebron James deserves a lot more than he is allowed to make for example.

Another negative effect of the max is that any all star level, or near all star level, player uses it as a launch point in salary negotiations. It leads players in general getting overpaid and wastes cap space. The cap exploding didn't cause teams to overpay players, it just gave them a better opportunity to do so. Teams were already overpaying players because they handed then a negotiating tool with max salaries. Here is some of the contracts that have been signed since 2015 (and many were considered terrible at the time)

2015
Marc Gasol-5 years $110 million
Kevin Love-5 years $110 million
Greg Monroe-3 years $50 million
Brandon Knight-5 years $70 million

2016
Bradley Beal-5 years $128 million
Timofey Mozgov-4 years $64 million
DeMar DeRozan-5 years $145 million
Andre Drummond-5 years $130 million
Nicolas Batum-5 years $120 million
Hassan Whiteside-4 years $98 million
Chandler Parsons-4 years $94 million
Evan Turner-4 years $70 million
Mike Conley-5 years $153 million
Joakim Noah-4 years $72 million
Luol Deng-4 years $72 million
Bismack Biyombo-4 years $72 million
Ryan Anderson-4 years $80 million

2017
Kyle Lowry-3 years $100 million
George Hill-3 years $57 million
Jrue Holiday-5 years $125 million
Tim Hardaway Jr-4 years $71 million
Otto Porter Jr-4 years $104 million
Blake Griffin-5 years $173 million
Paul Millsap-3 years $90 million

While not all of those deals were considered to be terrible at the time, the majority of them were. The NBA wastes a lot of cap space overpaying for players because they don't allow the market to accurately dictate player salaries. Getting rid of max salaries would go a long way toward that and would allow the real stars in this league to make the money they deserve. For example, Lebron would probably get a contract starting between $40-50 million if the league had a hard cap of $119 million (he's making $33.3 million this season). The NBA is only popular because of the best talent, they deserve the most.

Lastly, the NBA should eliminate restricted free agency. Setting a hard cap would almost certainly mean the end of this because teams would not longer be able to go above the cap to retain their players. Restricted free agency is another way the league wastes cap space. Teams are forced to overpay for restricted free agents in fear that the team who holds the rights will match. In return for abolishing restricted free agency, the league could make rookie contracts one year longer, making them 5 years in total. After the 5th year, the player would become a free agent, capable of signing anywhere (assuming the teams have the cap).

So yes, a hard cap (tax line), elimination of max contracts, and abolishing restricted free agency would all go a long way toward cleaning up the league's convoluted and unnecessary salary cap structure. Hopefully we can see all of those things done in the next few years. The league can't implement these changes tomorrow, but maybe in next 5-10 years (no NBA player is under contract for 23-24'). So maybe sometime after 2023 we could see something like this.

TylerSL
06-02-2018, 02:31 PM
I'm against all cap systems, and believe league parity is best increased by having a free market.

While not a total free market, having a cap is better for parity. Without it, a team like the Hawks could never compete with the Lakers. I proposed making current luxury tax line the hard cap, as well as the elimination of max contracts and restricted free agency. Teams would have $119 million, or whatever the luxury tax is set at, to build a 15 man squad. The market would dictate the rest.

crewfan13
06-02-2018, 03:45 PM
so what if you have 5 allstars who all take less to play with each other and they build a Super Team?

do we change the rules again?

Thatís completely pointless to the discussion. If 5 stars are all willing to take less money to join up and create a super team, you canít stop that with any reasonable money system. The only way to prevent that is to have something ridiculous like a yearly league wide draft or the commissioner gets to veto free agents signings or something like that.

Under the current rules thereís nothing that prevents Lebron from taking the MLE and going to golden state. And Paul George could then sign with them for the vet minimum too. So that scenario really has nothing to do with this discussion because it could happen regardless of how the league is set up.

To me, getting rid of the max contract is the main key. Durant took less money to go to GS, but it wasnít a huge total in the grand scheme of things. If say Philly, who had a ton of cap that season could have offered him $10M per year more than golden state, it may have been a different decision for him.

Scoots
06-02-2018, 05:34 PM
I'm against all cap systems, and believe league parity is best increased by having a free market.

No draft, no cap, no cba, no league, at-will employment?

Scoots
06-02-2018, 05:36 PM
Thatís completely pointless to the discussion. If 5 stars are all willing to take less money to join up and create a super team, you canít stop that with any reasonable money system. The only way to prevent that is to have something ridiculous like a yearly league wide draft or the commissioner gets to veto free agents signings or something like that.

Under the current rules thereís nothing that prevents Lebron from taking the MLE and going to golden state. And Paul George could then sign with them for the vet minimum too. So that scenario really has nothing to do with this discussion because it could happen regardless of how the league is set up.

To me, getting rid of the max contract is the main key. Durant took less money to go to GS, but it wasnít a huge total in the grand scheme of things. If say Philly, who had a ton of cap that season could have offered him $10M per year more than golden state, it may have been a different decision for him.

I don't think it is pointless ... it illustrates that a hard cap won't keep super-teams from happening.

In fact a hard cap will make the draft even more important, and will encourage tanking even more.

Having said that I have no issue with a hard cap, I just don't think it will "fix" the NBA

Jeffy25
06-02-2018, 08:21 PM
No draft, no cap, no cba, no league, at-will employment?

Still a draft, CBA etc. Just a fixed amount of team control after draft, and then open employment from all 30 teams.

Scoots
06-02-2018, 08:52 PM
Still a draft, CBA etc. Just a fixed amount of team control after draft, and then open employment from all 30 teams.

See, I would go the other way. Hard cap, no guaranteed contracts, no max contracts, no minimum contract length, no maximum length, no draft, 20 man rosters.

warfelg
06-02-2018, 09:25 PM
There's always going to be a draft. It will never go away.

If you want a hard cap certain things would need to happen:
~You would need to find a way to take contracts off the cap if something happened that altered that players career.
~Players won't give up having guaranteed contracts.
---So these two things together you could do a situation like baseball. A designation for assignment, DFA, so when a player gets a DFA either a team with the cap space would have to claim that player or if they pass that and get released they get their contract off the books. But in either way the players get their money.

~Max contracts will have to go away. That poses problems to players like Barnes, Kemba, etc. The guys not worth a max but got them anyways. But overall I think it would create a better contract balance in terms of guys getting what they are actually worth.

~No more free agent holds on contracts. The RFA would have to go away and either do a tag system like NFL or arbitration like MLB. I think some type of combination would work. I think a "rights of first refusal" tag would work. It's a 2+1 deal based on the average of the 10th-20th highest paid at the position. The +1 is a player option. If you do this and some team offers this player a higher contract, you can either match, or get their first for letting them walk.

~1:1 NBA:G-League matched teams. 5 protected players in the G-League.

~Tied to that, draft becomes 3 rounds.

~Contract increases would either have to remain flat, or increases are tied to what the cap increase percent actually is. So instead of giving a guy 8% increases every year, it goes up dependent on cap. So if from year 2-3 of the contract the cap goes up 2%, his raise is 2%. If it's a 5% increase, it's a 5% increase to the contract.

Scoots
06-02-2018, 09:37 PM
There's always going to be a draft. It will never go away.

If you want a hard cap certain things would need to happen:
~You would need to find a way to take contracts off the cap if something happened that altered that players career.
~Players won't give up having guaranteed contracts.
---So these two things together you could do a situation like baseball. A designation for assignment, DFA, so when a player gets a DFA either a team with the cap space would have to claim that player or if they pass that and get released they get their contract off the books. But in either way the players get their money.

~Max contracts will have to go away. That poses problems to players like Barnes, Kemba, etc. The guys not worth a max but got them anyways. But overall I think it would create a better contract balance in terms of guys getting what they are actually worth.

~No more free agent holds on contracts. The RFA would have to go away and either do a tag system like NFL or arbitration like MLB. I think some type of combination would work. I think a "rights of first refusal" tag would work. It's a 2+1 deal based on the average of the 10th-20th highest paid at the position. The +1 is a player option. If you do this and some team offers this player a higher contract, you can either match, or get their first for letting them walk.

~1:1 NBA:G-League matched teams. 5 protected players in the G-League.

~Tied to that, draft becomes 3 rounds.

~Contract increases would either have to remain flat, or increases are tied to what the cap increase percent actually is. So instead of giving a guy 8% increases every year, it goes up dependent on cap. So if from year 2-3 of the contract the cap goes up 2%, his raise is 2%. If it's a 5% increase, it's a 5% increase to the contract.

Guaranteed contracts could go away, it's a key factor in the NFL hard cap, and the players could be incentivized into accepting it. Just like max contracts could go away. But neither is at all likely.

IndyRealist
06-02-2018, 10:54 PM
Guaranteed contracts could go away, it's a key factor in the NFL hard cap, and the players could be incentivized into accepting it. Just like max contracts could go away. But neither is at all likely.

The NFL is moving toward more and more guaranteed money, not less. It's highly unlikely you could offer players anything that would make them give up guaranteed contracts short of like an extra 10% of BRI.

Jeffy25
06-02-2018, 10:55 PM
See, I would go the other way. Hard cap, no guaranteed contracts, no max contracts, no minimum contract length, no maximum length, no draft, 20 man rosters.

I wrote my ideal setting awhile back.


But...


Available for draft at 18. Team control for 8 NBA seasons after draft.

Players could enter the draft every year, college players would be more likely to be taken more with some years of experience because teams would collect more prime years. Only studs would be taken at 18 and 19.

You can store a guy in the G league for up to 3 years without NBA service time before you have to protect him on your 15 man roster

Those first 8 years would be under limited financial controls and it would be based on draft position.

A first overall pick would possibly have a salary lay out of something like

Year 1 - $4M
Year 2 - $6M
Year 3 - $8M
Year 4 - $10M
Year 5 - $12M
Year 6 - $14M
Year 7 - $16M
Year 8 - $18M

These salaries would be pre-determined when drafted, and they would collect a salary while in the G league

It would tier down the further down in the draft you fall (so a 30th rounder would probably only make league min the first two years, then slowly graduate to a higher premium, but cap out fairly low overall)

So if you can develop a stud with a late round pick, he is immensely valuable.

You can also, of course, release them at any point to avoid paying further down the pay scale.

You could also open up the latter 3 years to arbitration.

Then an unlimited spending availability for beyond that. So if you draft a stud, and know you have his team control for awhile. Spend big and put good players around him.

The big piece of this will be mega contracts to aging superstars.

Guys like Durant could get a 10 year, $450M contract. Where you know he's excellent in the front half, but he's gonna suck in the backhalf and you are stuck with him.

Teams would constantly have to cycle in 3-5 year intervals of competitiveness unless they can be amazing in the draft.


Play around with the 8 year mark based on real life examples of how teams would have been assembled to find the right number (or negotiate it).




It rewards teams that have to rebuild and do well in the draft. And allows teams to both maximize their win probability in free agency, but it forces them to rebuild when those guys slow down.


It sounds like you want more the NFL style, and I want more the MLB style.

warfelg
06-03-2018, 08:43 AM
Guaranteed contracts could go away, it's a key factor in the NFL hard cap, and the players could be incentivized into accepting it. Just like max contracts could go away. But neither is at all likely.

I just provided a compromise to that. Players still get their money, teams get cap flexibility.

Mr.B
06-03-2018, 09:44 AM
Tonight during the Interview Silver talked about the colangelo thing and also about this

--When asked about the league's feelings on the same teams playing in the Finals for the fourth consecutive season, Silver pointed out that the Warriorsand Cavs have the two highest payrolls in the league at $137 million each. He went so far as to raise the specter of a hard salary cap like the NFL employs that could potentially even out the league's competitive balance.


Good or bad in your opinion?

The players union would never go for that.

warfelg
06-03-2018, 09:53 AM
The players union would never go for that.

Itís not that they wonít go for it. Itís what comes with it. If a hard cap meant no more max, I think that would happen.

The sticking point will come in guaranteed contracts. Thatís something thatís hard to walk back. So theyíll have to find a way to make it so money offered is what they get, and you canít just cut players without consequences.

Scoots
06-03-2018, 12:42 PM
The NFL is moving toward more and more guaranteed money, not less. It's highly unlikely you could offer players anything that would make them give up guaranteed contracts short of like an extra 10% of BRI.

Sounds about right. Not impossible, but very unlikely. But the absolute hard cap is tough with the current salary structure rules. The NFL has several rules to mitigate even the money they call "guaranteed" which makes it less of a "hard cap" because cutting a player doesn't hurt as much as it does in the NBA now.

Scoots
06-03-2018, 12:46 PM
I wrote my ideal setting awhile back.


But...


Available for draft at 18. Team control for 8 NBA seasons after draft.

Players could enter the draft every year, college players would be more likely to be taken more with some years of experience because teams would collect more prime years. Only studs would be taken at 18 and 19.

You can store a guy in the G league for up to 3 years without NBA service time before you have to protect him on your 15 man roster

Those first 8 years would be under limited financial controls and it would be based on draft position.

A first overall pick would possibly have a salary lay out of something like

Year 1 - $4M
Year 2 - $6M
Year 3 - $8M
Year 4 - $10M
Year 5 - $12M
Year 6 - $14M
Year 7 - $16M
Year 8 - $18M

These salaries would be pre-determined when drafted, and they would collect a salary while in the G league

It would tier down the further down in the draft you fall (so a 30th rounder would probably only make league min the first two years, then slowly graduate to a higher premium, but cap out fairly low overall)

So if you can develop a stud with a late round pick, he is immensely valuable.

You can also, of course, release them at any point to avoid paying further down the pay scale.

You could also open up the latter 3 years to arbitration.

Then an unlimited spending availability for beyond that. So if you draft a stud, and know you have his team control for awhile. Spend big and put good players around him.

The big piece of this will be mega contracts to aging superstars.

Guys like Durant could get a 10 year, $450M contract. Where you know he's excellent in the front half, but he's gonna suck in the backhalf and you are stuck with him.

Teams would constantly have to cycle in 3-5 year intervals of competitiveness unless they can be amazing in the draft.


Play around with the 8 year mark based on real life examples of how teams would have been assembled to find the right number (or negotiate it).




It rewards teams that have to rebuild and do well in the draft. And allows teams to both maximize their win probability in free agency, but it forces them to rebuild when those guys slow down.


It sounds like you want more the NFL style, and I want more the MLB style.

So ... not a free market at all.

I do like the idea of having a lot more talent under contract to teams to give them time to develop them and evaluate them.

Scoots
06-03-2018, 12:51 PM
Itís not that they wonít go for it. Itís what comes with it. If a hard cap meant no more max, I think that would happen.

The sticking point will come in guaranteed contracts. Thatís something thatís hard to walk back. So theyíll have to find a way to make it so money offered is what they get, and you canít just cut players without consequences.

You know the union likes the max contract right? The superstars don't like it, but the union as a whole understands that the max means a lot more players make a lot more money and in union votes the superstar is equal to the journeyman.

The exceptions for cutting players mean it's not really a hard cap, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other, it's all possible if the players are offered enough money. That said, I still don't see the hard cap as a realistic possibility, nor do I think it will make a significant difference in increasing parity or decreasing tanking.

Jeffy25
06-04-2018, 05:07 PM
So ... not a free market at all.

I do like the idea of having a lot more talent under contract to teams to give them time to develop them and evaluate them.

Free market after service time accomplished

IndyRealist
06-04-2018, 05:30 PM
Free market after service time accomplished

You make the assumption that only studs will be drafted at 18 and 19. Historically we know that to not be true. What team is going to wait a couple of years when their draft position is different and the player they want will get snagged out from under them? And you allow players 3 years in the G-league before impacting the roster? Every team is going to draft and stash. Especially late 1st rounders will end up being raw 18yr olds who are boom or bust.

And you virtually need team option years, or you are stuck for 8 years with Michael Beasley and Darko Milicic.

And 8 years is a huge jump from the current 4. There will be players with expiring contracts that fall into a 5-8 gray area. How do you handle those? You'll be floating two sets of free agency rules for half a decade.

crewfan13
06-08-2018, 08:00 PM
Itís not that they wonít go for it. Itís what comes with it. If a hard cap meant no more max, I think that would happen.

The sticking point will come in guaranteed contracts. Thatís something thatís hard to walk back. So theyíll have to find a way to make it so money offered is what they get, and you canít just cut players without consequences.

Itís a tough sell to the players for sure, but it really shouldnít be. The only big impact it would have as a whole would be on guys who have career ending injuries, or at least career altering injuries like rose. But as a whole, the total money still gets passed out.

Itís not like the total money distributed to the league goes down when you take away guaranteed contracts. It just takes money away from injured/declining players and distributes it to the more deserving guys. I know the players wonít see it that way, but itís kind of the truth. As a bucks fan, we have 3 guys under contract on regrettable deals and virtually no cap room. If we resign Parker, we very likely will only have a MLE to spend. If we could dunk guys like delly, Henson and/or snell to free up cash, Iím sure they would spend it on guys to improve the team, not just horde it. It would suck for the guys like Henson, but it would be much better for the potential free agent who probably gets less money this offseason.

If they were ever going to convince the union to do anything, this offseason would be a huge benefit for the leagues arguement. I think money is going to be very tight for non elite players.


You make the assumption that only studs will be drafted at 18 and 19. Historically we know that to not be true. What team is going to wait a couple of years when their draft position is different and the player they want will get snagged out from under them? And you allow players 3 years in the G-league before impacting the roster? Every team is going to draft and stash. Especially late 1st rounders will end up being raw 18yr olds who are boom or bust.

And you virtually need team option years, or you are stuck for 8 years with Michael Beasley and Darko Milicic.

And 8 years is a huge jump from the current 4. There will be players with expiring contracts that fall into a 5-8 gray area. How do you handle those? You'll be floating two sets of free agency rules for half a decade.

Agree. Only having 4 years of control hasnít deterred teams from teams from drafting super raw 18/19 year olds, so why would having even more control start deterring teams? If anything, it punishes players from staying in school. If you go to school and stay for a few years, with 8 years of control you donít really hit the free market until 29 or 30 years old in some cases.

Scoots
06-08-2018, 10:31 PM
Itís not like the total money distributed to the league goes down when you take away guaranteed contracts. It just takes money away from injured/declining players and distributes it to the more deserving guys. I know the players wonít see it that way, but itís kind of the truth. As a bucks fan, we have 3 guys under contract on regrettable deals and virtually no cap room. If we resign Parker, we very likely will only have a MLE to spend. If we could dunk guys like delly, Henson and/or snell to free up cash, Iím sure they would spend it on guys to improve the team, not just horde it. It would suck for the guys like Henson, but it would be much better for the potential free agent who probably gets less money this offseason.

This, of course. Getting rid of guaranteed contracts (either from the cap or overall) is nothing but good for the league. Maybe if a team cuts a player they only get 50% of their remaining contract and if they sign elsewhere they get nothing from the original team.

IndyRealist
06-08-2018, 11:09 PM
This, of course. Getting rid of guaranteed contracts (either from the cap or overall) is nothing but good for the league. Maybe if a team cuts a player they only get 50% of their remaining contract and if they sign elsewhere they get nothing from the original team.

Not if you're the cut player. And he gets a vote.

Scoots
06-09-2018, 12:46 AM
Not if you're the cut player. And he gets a vote.

I said good for the league, not good for the individual.

IndyRealist
06-09-2018, 07:38 AM
I said good for the league, not good for the individual.

I mean, players are the league. And there are a lot more fringe guys who are a bad month or an injury away from being cut than there are max players. If the only way to make this work is nixing guaranteed contracts, then I seriously doubt it's going to work.

Scoots
06-09-2018, 10:52 AM
I mean, players are the league. And there are a lot more fringe guys who are a bad month or an injury away from being cut than there are max players. If the only way to make this work is nixing guaranteed contracts, then I seriously doubt it's going to work.

As do I.

crewfan13
06-10-2018, 08:00 PM
I mean, players are the league. And there are a lot more fringe guys who are a bad month or an injury away from being cut than there are max players. If the only way to make this work is nixing guaranteed contracts, then I seriously doubt it's going to work.

But nixing guaranteed deals isnít actually bad for the players as a whole in most cases, just bad for certain players and much better for other players. Most of those fringe guys are already signing non guaranteed or one year deals. The guys who are affected by this are good players who suffer massive, career altering injuries or the guys who cash in after 1 or 2 good years then disappoint.

Non guaranteed or partially guaranteed contracts are hurting the 15th guy on the roster cuz that guys already on that type of deal. The guys it hurts are guys like Evan Turner, Mozgov and Delly.

I mean, this offseason will be a perfect example. Thereís not a lot of teams with a bunch of cap room. Itís probably going to be a tough free agent year for the non top players. But just about every team has at least one, possibly two or three guys that they would be happy to get off the books and spend that money elsewhere. It would suck for the guys who teams want off the books, but it would be great for the mid tier free agents this year.

And if they were to move to a hard cap, players would probably earn more money by getting rid of guaranteed deals. If you keep guaranteed deals, far fewer teams will be willing to spend close to the cap unless they have expiring contracts. They need to maintain cap flexibility in case someone gets hurt. If you rid the league of guaranteed deals, teams wonít have to worry about leaving as much cap space for next year, since they have additional way of clearing space.

IndyRealist
06-10-2018, 08:10 PM
But nixing guaranteed deals isnít actually bad for the players as a whole in most cases, just bad for certain players and much better for other players. Most of those fringe guys are already signing non guaranteed or one year deals. The guys who are affected by this are good players who suffer massive, career altering injuries or the guys who cash in after 1 or 2 good years then disappoint.

Non guaranteed or partially guaranteed contracts are hurting the 15th guy on the roster cuz that guys already on that type of deal. The guys it hurts are guys like Evan Turner, Mozgov and Delly.

I mean, this offseason will be a perfect example. Thereís not a lot of teams with a bunch of cap room. Itís probably going to be a tough free agent year for the non top players. But just about every team has at least one, possibly two or three guys that they would be happy to get off the books and spend that money elsewhere. It would suck for the guys who teams want off the books, but it would be great for the mid tier free agents this year.

And if they were to move to a hard cap, players would probably earn more money by getting rid of guaranteed deals. If you keep guaranteed deals, far fewer teams will be willing to spend close to the cap unless they have expiring contracts. They need to maintain cap flexibility in case someone gets hurt. If you rid the league of guaranteed deals, teams wonít have to worry about leaving as much cap space for next year, since they have additional way of clearing space.

Players salaries as a whole is a percentage of BRI. Players will not make more just because you take away guaranteed contracts. Teams have to spend the money no matter what. Individual teams fluctuate up and down, but how much the league spends on salaries is essentially predetermined.

Every player has had injuries, and every player is fearful of that Paul George-esque injury that could end their career. They're not giving up guaranteed contracts.

Scoots
06-10-2018, 08:20 PM
But nixing guaranteed deals isnít actually bad for the players as a whole in most cases, just bad for certain players and much better for other players. Most of those fringe guys are already signing non guaranteed or one year deals. The guys who are affected by this are good players who suffer massive, career altering injuries or the guys who cash in after 1 or 2 good years then disappoint.

Non guaranteed or partially guaranteed contracts are hurting the 15th guy on the roster cuz that guys already on that type of deal. The guys it hurts are guys like Evan Turner, Mozgov and Delly.

I mean, this offseason will be a perfect example. Thereís not a lot of teams with a bunch of cap room. Itís probably going to be a tough free agent year for the non top players. But just about every team has at least one, possibly two or three guys that they would be happy to get off the books and spend that money elsewhere. It would suck for the guys who teams want off the books, but it would be great for the mid tier free agents this year.

And if they were to move to a hard cap, players would probably earn more money by getting rid of guaranteed deals. If you keep guaranteed deals, far fewer teams will be willing to spend close to the cap unless they have expiring contracts. They need to maintain cap flexibility in case someone gets hurt. If you rid the league of guaranteed deals, teams wonít have to worry about leaving as much cap space for next year, since they have additional way of clearing space.

You think guaranteed contracts are HURTING Mozgov? He's going to make almost $60M for not playing BECAUSE of his guaranteed contract. If it wasn't guaranteed he would have been cut.

The only players guaranteed contracts hurt are players who have less cap money available for them to be signed ... but even those players want guaranteed contracts when they sign.

crewfan13
06-11-2018, 09:48 AM
You read it wrong. Iím saying the opposite. If you have non guaranteed deals, it would hurt the mozgov types, not the bottom of the roster types.

crewfan13
06-11-2018, 10:25 AM
Players salaries as a whole is a percentage of BRI. Players will not make more just because you take away guaranteed contracts. Teams have to spend the money no matter what. Individual teams fluctuate up and down, but how much the league spends on salaries is essentially predetermined.

Every player has had injuries, and every player is fearful of that Paul George-esque injury that could end their career. They're not giving up guaranteed contracts.

I know they wonít, but itís short sighted. How many Paul George type injuries are there? Itís a handful at most. But non guaranteed deals do a better job of distributing the money to the more deserving players instead of the guys who hit a massive contract after 1 decent year.

And youíre probably right with the money distribution. But my point is more that with guaranteed deals, teams have to leave some cap room to maintain flexibility. Or theyíll sign more one year deals. If you have non guaranteed deals, teams will be more likely to spend tight up against the cap since they have ways to free up space the next offseason.

IndyRealist
06-11-2018, 10:29 AM
I know they wonít, but itís short sighted. How many Paul George type injuries are there? Itís a handful at most. But non guaranteed deals do a better job of distributing the money to the more deserving players instead of the guys who hit a massive contract after 1 decent year.

And youíre probably right with the money distribution. But my point is more that with guaranteed deals, teams have to leave some cap room to maintain flexibility. Or theyíll sign more one year deals. If you have non guaranteed deals, teams will be more likely to spend tight up against the cap since they have ways to free up space the next offseason.
That's like saying "you don't need insurance. What are the odds you'll get cancer?"

mariner4life
06-11-2018, 12:30 PM
Free market after service time accomplished

You're not going to get much support in this forum. Only in the baseball forum where they are less educated on caps and are scared, is where a few might agree with you.

WestCoastSportz
06-11-2018, 12:39 PM
I like the idea of a hard cap, but that numbers has to be pretty high. If they set the hard cap at say $125M, what does a team like the Warriors and Cavaliers do? Do they have to release one of their highest paid players to get under the cap. The idea is nice, but the logistics behind it would be a complete nightmare.

crewfan13
06-11-2018, 01:30 PM
That's like saying "you don't need insurance. What are the odds you'll get cancer?"

But the nba cap and the real world are wildly different and arenít comparable in any way. The nba cap is a set amount of money for a set amount of players. I hate all real world comparisons to anything sports because they are entirely different. It isnít a decision of either we all have full life insurance or none of us get any life insurance, which is basically what the guaranteed contracts thing is.

As youíve said, earnings are set for the league no matter what if you institute a hard cap. So the question with guaranteed vs non or partially guaranteed (which partially guaranteed like the nfl would be the way to go) is who should ďsufferĒ in the new system. In either system, the high level players and the fringe players end up being very lightly impacted. High level guys are going to most likely play out their contract regardless. And the fringe players are already signing cheap, short term, often times non guaranteed deals any ways. So really the guys impacted are the mid tier guys, basically guys number 4-12 or so on the roster.

With partially guaranteed deals, the benefit goes to the consistent and good performers. The guys who suffer are the underachievers who sign decent to big deals then fall off. Because those guys can be releasedto free up some money, it opens up more total money to be spent in free agency. That means bigger deals for anyone. The guys who are relatively consistent and higher level performers wonít be at risk of being cut as often, so they will likely have higher total earnings.

With fully guaranteed deals, the guys who benefit are the guys who stink after signing their contract. Having bad deals stay in the books for the entirety of the deal, so thereís less total money to spend in FA. That suppresses the value of all FA contracts signed by mid tier guys, which hurts the consistent, high performers (again, just referring to the middle class of FAs).

Now partially guaranteed deals also run the risk of hurting the guys who suffer career altering injuries. But, as Iíve stated, those guys are relatively few and far between. So making a decision for the entire league based upon those few players is probably unwise. As a whole, partially guaranteed deals will get good, solid players more money at the expense of the one or two year wonders. Fully guaranteed deals tend to do the opposite. So on a whole, isnít it a better financial model to generally pay better players more than guys who are arguably undeserving?

JLynn943
06-11-2018, 02:18 PM
I feel that the hard cap is necessary at this point, but I can't imagine it happening any time soon. The NBA would have to tank in ratings, owners losing more money, etc. for the players' union to even be willing to talk about it.

IndyRealist
06-11-2018, 03:03 PM
But the nba cap and the real world are wildly different and arenít comparable in any way. The nba cap is a set amount of money for a set amount of players. I hate all real world comparisons to anything sports because they are entirely different. It isnít a decision of either we all have full life insurance or none of us get any life insurance, which is basically what the guaranteed contracts thing is.

As youíve said, earnings are set for the league no matter what if you institute a hard cap. So the question with guaranteed vs non or partially guaranteed (which partially guaranteed like the nfl would be the way to go) is who should ďsufferĒ in the new system. In either system, the high level players and the fringe players end up being very lightly impacted. High level guys are going to most likely play out their contract regardless. And the fringe players are already signing cheap, short term, often times non guaranteed deals any ways. So really the guys impacted are the mid tier guys, basically guys number 4-12 or so on the roster.

With partially guaranteed deals, the benefit goes to the consistent and good performers. The guys who suffer are the underachievers who sign decent to big deals then fall off. Because those guys can be releasedto free up some money, it opens up more total money to be spent in free agency. That means bigger deals for anyone. The guys who are relatively consistent and higher level performers wonít be at risk of being cut as often, so they will likely have higher total earnings.

With fully guaranteed deals, the guys who benefit are the guys who stink after signing their contract. Having bad deals stay in the books for the entirety of the deal, so thereís less total money to spend in FA. That suppresses the value of all FA contracts signed by mid tier guys, which hurts the consistent, high performers (again, just referring to the middle class of FAs).

Now partially guaranteed deals also run the risk of hurting the guys who suffer career altering injuries. But, as Iíve stated, those guys are relatively few and far between. So making a decision for the entire league based upon those few players is probably unwise. As a whole, partially guaranteed deals will get good, solid players more money at the expense of the one or two year wonders. Fully guaranteed deals tend to do the opposite. So on a whole, isnít it a better financial model to generally pay better players more than guys who are arguably undeserving?

What you are missed is that every single player realizes he could be that guy with the career ending injury.

Why would any player give up his insurance policy against injury for no personal gains? The only way to convince players to give up guaranteed contracts is to give them more money. Like, going from 50% BRI to 60%. I doubt the owners want to give up an extra billion dollars to institute a hard cap.

The only people who really want this are people on the outside who don't have to give anything up.

crewfan13
06-11-2018, 08:57 PM
What you are missed is that every single player realizes he could be that guy with the career ending injury.

Why would any player give up his insurance policy against injury for no personal gains? The only way to convince players to give up guaranteed contracts is to give them more money. Like, going from 50% BRI to 60%. I doubt the owners want to give up an extra billion dollars to institute a hard cap.

The only people who really want this are people on the outside who don't have to give anything up.

But there are personal gains. If we assume a $130 mill cap or so and use an estimated cap space calculation, there would be about $500 million worth of cap space to be spent this offseason. Thereís about 10 teams way to far above the cap to really have real space. But if the other 20 teams could free up about $10 mill a peice in guys cut from partially guaranteed deals, it would create 40% more cap space. Now, there would be more spots to fill, but the guys who got cut arenít signing for anywhere near the same deals they originally signed in most cases.

So thatís where the gain is for the players. If youíre reasonably healthy and semi consistently productive, you are losing money from guaranteed deals. The bad players on huge deals basically steal money from the rest of the guys.

IndyRealist
06-12-2018, 08:47 AM
But there are personal gains. If we assume a $130 mill cap or so and use an estimated cap space calculation, there would be about $500 million worth of cap space to be spent this offseason. Thereís about 10 teams way to far above the cap to really have real space. But if the other 20 teams could free up about $10 mill a peice in guys cut from partially guaranteed deals, it would create 40% more cap space. Now, there would be more spots to fill, but the guys who got cut arenít signing for anywhere near the same deals they originally signed in most cases.

So thatís where the gain is for the players. If youíre reasonably healthy and semi consistently productive, you are losing money from guaranteed deals. The bad players on huge deals basically steal money from the rest of the guys.

You realize you just said what I said. If you want to do away with guaranteed contracts, you're going to have to give the players more money. The cap is based off of BRI. $30 million more for most of 30 teams is $900 million. Essentially the billion I quoted.

crewfan13
06-12-2018, 10:57 AM
I donít think anyone is suggesting the cap be flipped to a hard cap at all. I think all the hard cap folks accepted that the cap would likely have to be closer to the tax line, since thatís the real amount of money being paid currently into the league, especially with certain teams spending significantly over the tax.

My entire dispute isnít at the cap number, itís guaranteed vs non guaranteed deals, which would still be a discussion.

Scoots
06-12-2018, 12:06 PM
I donít think anyone is suggesting the cap be flipped to a hard cap at all. I think all the hard cap folks accepted that the cap would likely have to be closer to the tax line, since thatís the real amount of money being paid currently into the league, especially with certain teams spending significantly over the tax.

My entire dispute isnít at the cap number, itís guaranteed vs non guaranteed deals, which would still be a discussion.

Many people are specifically suggesting a hard cap. People were also suggesting getting rid of max contracts. I suggested that to sell a hard cap to owners they'd want to do away with guaranteed contracts. The problem with all of this is that the owners don't mind the current cap and the players like the current salary situation by and large (other than a tiny number of superstars) so the only significant group interested in making these changes are rabid fans. Thus, it's not going to happen anyhow though the NBA knows to make a show of talking about it to keep their fans mollified.

IndyRealist
06-12-2018, 02:07 PM
I donít think anyone is suggesting the cap be flipped to a hard cap at all. I think all the hard cap folks accepted that the cap would likely have to be closer to the tax line, since thatís the real amount of money being paid currently into the league, especially with certain teams spending significantly over the tax.

My entire dispute isnít at the cap number, itís guaranteed vs non guaranteed deals, which would still be a discussion.

And again, that means the owners are giving up a billion more dollars to player salary. That money is spent whether contracts are guaranteed or not. It's not an issue of the specific cap number, it's the percentage of BRI the players get that would have to increase.

Which of the two decision making parties, the players' union and the owners, do you think would be a proponent of this plan? The owners lose a billion dollars from their moneymaking machine, and the players lose their injury insurance. Who benefits from a hard cap that actually makes decisions?

NYKalltheway
06-12-2018, 02:19 PM
For starters, they should agree that salaries listed should be NET and not gross. Having any sort of cap with taxation differences due to state taxes or lack of makes the whole thing stupid in the first place.

Then you can have an 80m hard cap and someone getting 20m net would probably be better off than a max today.

IndyRealist
06-12-2018, 02:29 PM
For starters, they should agree that salaries listed should be NET and not gross. Having any sort of cap with taxation differences due to state taxes or lack of makes the whole thing stupid in the first place.

Then you can have an 80m hard cap and someone getting 20m net would probably be better off than a max today.

The tax difference is overstated, because states still get tax money, they just get it differently. My property tax is 3x higher here in Texas than in Indiana. Sales tax is 50% higher. State income tax is a pittance by comparison.

Scoots
06-12-2018, 04:41 PM
The tax difference is overstated, because states still get tax money, they just get it differently. My property tax is 3x higher here in Texas than in Indiana. Sales tax is 50% higher. State income tax is a pittance by comparison.

Cost of living in CA compared to FL is a huge difference when you are talking about a $200M contract.

CA has the highest base sales tax rate and state income tax is as high as 14%.

IndyRealist
06-12-2018, 05:40 PM
Cost of living in CA compared to FL is a huge difference when you are talking about a $200M contract.

CA has the highest base sales tax rate and state income tax is as high as 14%.

Yeah Cali is it's own monster. Doesn't mean we should use it as the baseline though.

Scoots
06-12-2018, 07:52 PM
Yeah Cali is it's own monster. Doesn't mean we should use it as the baseline though.

It's not a baseline ... the point was making it equal for cost of living does make some sense and there are 3 teams in CA. That's 10% of the NBA in CA. 2 more teams in NY and while the income tax there is "only" around 9% the sales tax there is higher than CA.

If the NBA really wants parity then true 100% revenue sharing should be the goal, and COL adjustments should be as well.

I don't know how you balance out the fact that some NBA cities are ... less than ... other NBA cities.

Right now CA and NY have a near 8% bottom line disadvantage compared to Houston/Dallas/San Antonio. That's serious scratch.

crewfan13
06-12-2018, 09:25 PM
Sorry, I may have misspoke. I know this is entirely about a hard cap. But reasonably speaking, I donít think anyone expects the current cap number to just become the hard cap. I think most reasonable people understand that a hard cap total would likely have to be closer to the tax line than the current soft cap mark.

Right now the cap is at roughly $100 mill. I believe the tax is in the $130 mill range with a few teams, like Cleveland and GS last year paying fairly significantly over the tax line. So to get roughly the same amount of spending, a hard cap would need to be set in the $120-$130 mill range.

IndyRealist
06-12-2018, 09:32 PM
It's not a baseline ... the point was making it equal for cost of living does make some sense and there are 3 teams in CA. That's 10% of the NBA in CA. 2 more teams in NY and while the income tax there is "only" around 9% the sales tax there is higher than CA.

If the NBA really wants parity then true 100% revenue sharing should be the goal, and COL adjustments should be as well.

I don't know how you balance out the fact that some NBA cities are ... less than ... other NBA cities.

Right now CA and NY have a near 8% bottom line disadvantage compared to Houston/Dallas/San Antonio. That's serious scratch.

Cost of Living adjustment is not the same as an income tax adjustment. COL was not mentioned until just now. NY and CA teams can eat that cost because they make more money than everybody else. Other teams, not so sure.

crewfan13
06-12-2018, 09:58 PM
And again, that means the owners are giving up a billion more dollars to player salary. That money is spent whether contracts are guaranteed or not. It's not an issue of the specific cap number, it's the percentage of BRI the players get that would have to increase.

Which of the two decision making parties, the players' union and the owners, do you think would be a proponent of this plan? The owners lose a billion dollars from their moneymaking machine, and the players lose their injury insurance. Who benefits from a hard cap that actually makes decisions?

But they donít. Owners as a whole are already spending that money. The median nba salary spend this past year was $116 million. So if you set the cap at $120, not every team is going to spend right up against the cap, but getneally speaking the same amount of money is likely to be spent. Heck, even if you set it at $115 youíd actually have less money.

So no, the owners donít lose a billion dollars by any stretch of the imagination. Letís say last yearís floor and cap would have been set at $95 and $120. Only 4 teams would have been forced to spend more money, 2 of which would have had to spend less than $1 mill each. The most a team would have had to spend is $10 mill. And at $120, you would have had 7 teams over, but 2 of those were less than $1 mill over.

So with those numbers, essentially 23 of the 30 teams would have been with the thresholds and had to spend no additional money. If you include an amnesty again, as well as a 2 year grace period to get down to the cap number, GS is probably the only team who struggles to get down to the cap, since ty donít have any glaringly bad deals.

So thereís definitely ways to implement a hard cap without drastically changing the financials of the nba. Add a little more profit sharing to appease the smaller market owners and you could be good to go. And the larger markets will likely be happy since they canít be shamed into spending way over the tax and can make decent money on championship runs.

And the players have guaranteed themselves a bigger safety net. Right now, if teams chose to just limit themselves to the cap, players would be out a ton of money. This way raises the floor of guaranteed mineubthevolayers get as well.

crewfan13
06-12-2018, 10:04 PM
It's not a baseline ... the point was making it equal for cost of living does make some sense and there are 3 teams in CA. That's 10% of the NBA in CA. 2 more teams in NY and while the income tax there is "only" around 9% the sales tax there is higher than CA.

If the NBA really wants parity then true 100% revenue sharing should be the goal, and COL adjustments should be as well.

I don't know how you balance out the fact that some NBA cities are ... less than ... other NBA cities.

Right now CA and NY have a near 8% bottom line disadvantage compared to Houston/Dallas/San Antonio. That's serious scratch.

Truthfully, I donít think players take that stuff into a ton of consideration. For a lot of guys, contract is more about prestige. Itís I think Iím better than player X so I want to make more than player X. Itís not, congrats player X on signing your deal, but my paychecks are bigger and my home was 30% cheaper for the same square footage.

Like Indy said, thereís a lot more to cost of living and true value of contracts than just income tax. And if youíre going to start calculating that, you also have to start including endorsement potential and all things like that, which makes it more convoluted.

And I donít see that as a problem anyways. Are players really spurning the CA and NY markets for Dallas and Denver? Is that even a thought in peopleís minds. Guys were willing to sign in Cleveland because of Lebron. If he leaves, itís not like thatís going to stay an attractive market

Scoots
06-12-2018, 11:13 PM
Cost of Living adjustment is not the same as an income tax adjustment. COL was not mentioned until just now. NY and CA teams can eat that cost because they make more money than everybody else. Other teams, not so sure.

No, I mentioned it earlier, but I suspect it was in a different thread and I got them mixed up :) (it may have been in the tanking thread)

And if there is true revenue sharing NY and LA teams would not be making more money.

Scoots
06-12-2018, 11:22 PM
Truthfully, I donít think players take that stuff into a ton of consideration. For a lot of guys, contract is more about prestige. Itís I think Iím better than player X so I want to make more than player X. Itís not, congrats player X on signing your deal, but my paychecks are bigger and my home was 30% cheaper for the same square footage.

Like Indy said, thereís a lot more to cost of living and true value of contracts than just income tax. And if youíre going to start calculating that, you also have to start including endorsement potential and all things like that, which makes it more convoluted.

And I donít see that as a problem anyways. Are players really spurning the CA and NY markets for Dallas and Denver? Is that even a thought in peopleís minds. Guys were willing to sign in Cleveland because of Lebron. If he leaves, itís not like thatís going to stay an attractive market

Yeah, I don't think it's possible to really make it equal. I think the endorsement money isn't as big an issue anymore than it used to be.

Players have mentioned state income tax in the past yes. They see that big number on ESPN then they get the first statement from their accountant and wonder where it all went :)

IndyRealist
06-13-2018, 08:44 AM
But they donít. Owners as a whole are already spending that money. The median nba salary spend this past year was $116 million. So if you set the cap at $120, not every team is going to spend right up against the cap, but getneally speaking the same amount of money is likely to be spent. Heck, even if you set it at $115 youíd actually have less money.

So no, the owners donít lose a billion dollars by any stretch of the imagination. Letís say last yearís floor and cap would have been set at $95 and $120. Only 4 teams would have been forced to spend more money, 2 of which would have had to spend less than $1 mill each. The most a team would have had to spend is $10 mill. And at $120, you would have had 7 teams over, but 2 of those were less than $1 mill over.

So with those numbers, essentially 23 of the 30 teams would have been with the thresholds and had to spend no additional money. If you include an amnesty again, as well as a 2 year grace period to get down to the cap number, GS is probably the only team who struggles to get down to the cap, since ty donít have any glaringly bad deals.

So thereís definitely ways to implement a hard cap without drastically changing the financials of the nba. Add a little more profit sharing to appease the smaller market owners and you could be good to go. And the larger markets will likely be happy since they canít be shamed into spending way over the tax and can make decent money on championship runs.

And the players have guaranteed themselves a bigger safety net. Right now, if teams chose to just limit themselves to the cap, players would be out a ton of money. This way raises the floor of guaranteed mineubthevolayers get as well.

You don't understand how the system works. The team salary numbers are irrelevant for this discussion. The CBA guarantees that 48-52% of BRI is spent on player salary. Even if EVERY team were at the salary floor, the money still goes to the players. What I am saying is that for players to give up guaranteed contracts, you'd have to bump that up to over 60%, or around a billion dollars more.

Scoots
06-13-2018, 10:02 AM
You don't understand how the system works. The team salary numbers are irrelevant for this discussion. The CBA guarantees that 48-52% of BRI is spent on player salary. Even if EVERY team were at the salary floor, the money still goes to the players. What I am saying is that for players to give up guaranteed contracts, you'd have to bump that up to over 60%, or around a billion dollars more.

In addition to that I suspect that the cap would likely be above the strict 52% threshold so the wealthier teams pay enough to the players to make up for the teams well below the cap. So the hard cap may be $180M a year with that bump and with the additional money to get rid of guaranteed contracts.

crewfan13
06-13-2018, 10:08 AM
You don't understand how the system works. The team salary numbers are irrelevant for this discussion. The CBA guarantees that 48-52% of BRI is spent on player salary. Even if EVERY team were at the salary floor, the money still goes to the players. What I am saying is that for players to give up guaranteed contracts, you'd have to bump that up to over 60%, or around a billion dollars more.

Team salaries are absolutely not irrelevant. You donít think teams look at the two teams in the finals paying massive tax bills and wonder if they can afford to compete? OKC was a poster child. They said they couldnít afford to keep harden and Ibaka, so they had to trade one. But realistically, they could have kept everyone, but would have had to pay huge tax bills. You donít think owners wouldnít love a cap that would prevent that from even being an option. Same with Cleveland right now. They basically are at the mercy of Lebron every year, and every year he can basically force their bill slightly higher. You donít think Gilbert wouldnít love a cap that says he canít spend more.

I get what youíre saying. Owners would be reluctant to bump the cap floor in case things go horribly wrong. But realistically, if every team drops to the minimum expenditure, thereís a ton of problems in the league and the league is probably on the brink of failing. I donít see that being an issue in the next 5-10 years, which is what a renegotiated CBA would cover. And even if they have to give up a percentage of earnings to get this done, thereís no way it would be more than a percent or two. No chance the players get anywhere close to 60%.

I guess we just disagree on this one. I think you can sell the owners in giving up a percent or two in order to take away the ability to spend crazy amounts of money for championship teams and giving them non guaranteed deals, to make roster turnover easier.

The players sacrifice guaranteed deals for a percent or two higher total earnings. And you can consider removing max deals, but Iím actually not sure if the players are pro or con max deals as a whole.

Bowman53
06-13-2018, 10:08 AM
Silver can dream about a hard cap as long as he wants. The NBPA will never agree to one.

BKLYNpigeon
06-13-2018, 10:23 AM
Silver can dream about a hard cap as long as he wants. The NBPA will never agree to one.

Well they have 5 years to think about it. Thats when the CBA can be renegotiated.

warfelg
06-13-2018, 10:40 AM
Ok, let me put a possible solution out there:

NBA moves to a hard cap. Cap moves to be based on 55% of BRI, no max contracts, players can be cut from cap.
Contract signed is still 100% guaranteed, even though cut players wont count to the cap. To pay for that 5% of BRI get's put in a yearly 'legacy fund' and players cut that offseason see the remainder of their contract paid out of that, prorated based on what they sign for. The left over from the 'legacy fund' gets rolled into the cap for the next offseason.

EXAMPLE:
If this were in place for the 2018 offseason. A 55% BRI would mean a $115 mil hard cap per team. The extra 5% would mean $500 million (give or take) in the fund.

Cav's decide, "We're going to cut JR Smith, LeBron walked and Smith ain't helping us." $14,720,000 comes out of the Cav's cap. Smith is guaranteed $30,400,000 the next two years no matter what. Lets say he signs a 2 year $14mil contract. For 2018 Smith get's $7,000,000 from his new team, and $7,720,000 from the legacy fund.

We hit the 2019 offseason and there was $60mil left in the 'legecy fund'. That means for the 2019 offseason, you take that and divide it evenly among the 30 teams, increasing the cap by $2mil over the 55% of BRI for the 2019 season. If the total offset salary of players cut go beyond the 5% of BRI set aside, then the owners must dip into their own pockets for offsetting contracts (divided among teams based on the percent of the fund used to cover for their players).

So now you got an all around win-win IMO. Players never give up guaranteed money, as the funds will always be set aside. Owners/GMs get flexibility in the hard cap of being able to move on from a player that under performs. The true superstars can really get theirs. Role players continually have a way to make money.

My estimation in this is the Superstars will rarely move. What you would see is the 2nd level players continuously move an take 2-3 year deals. For a guy like say, Marcus Smart, he could end up playing on 4 teams over 8 years, but that could be 8 years of $12mil AAV contracts, making him almost $100mil. Right now he might not make that over that time. It give players like that a larger pool to move to, as top teams would likely have continual money to use to change up their teams.

Scoots
06-13-2018, 11:40 AM
Ok, let me put a possible solution out there:

NBA moves to a hard cap. Cap moves to be based on 55% of BRI, no max contracts, players can be cut from cap.
Contract signed is still 100% guaranteed, even though cut players wont count to the cap. To pay for that 5% of BRI get's put in a yearly 'legacy fund' and players cut that offseason see the remainder of their contract paid out of that, prorated based on what they sign for. The left over from the 'legacy fund' gets rolled into the cap for the next offseason.

EXAMPLE:
If this were in place for the 2018 offseason. A 55% BRI would mean a $115 mil hard cap per team. The extra 5% would mean $500 million (give or take) in the fund.

Cav's decide, "We're going to cut JR Smith, LeBron walked and Smith ain't helping us." $14,720,000 comes out of the Cav's cap. Smith is guaranteed $30,400,000 the next two years no matter what. Lets say he signs a 2 year $14mil contract. For 2018 Smith get's $7,000,000 from his new team, and $7,720,000 from the legacy fund.

We hit the 2019 offseason and there was $60mil left in the 'legecy fund'. That means for the 2019 offseason, you take that and divide it evenly among the 30 teams, increasing the cap by $2mil over the 55% of BRI for the 2019 season. If the total offset salary of players cut go beyond the 5% of BRI set aside, then the owners must dip into their own pockets for offsetting contracts (divided among teams based on the percent of the fund used to cover for their players).

So now you got an all around win-win IMO. Players never give up guaranteed money, as the funds will always be set aside. Owners/GMs get flexibility in the hard cap of being able to move on from a player that under performs. The true superstars can really get theirs. Role players continually have a way to make money.

My estimation in this is the Superstars will rarely move. What you would see is the 2nd level players continuously move an take 2-3 year deals. For a guy like say, Marcus Smart, he could end up playing on 4 teams over 8 years, but that could be 8 years of $12mil AAV contracts, making him almost $100mil. Right now he might not make that over that time. It give players like that a larger pool to move to, as top teams would likely have continual money to use to change up their teams.

Teams are already claiming they are losing money and they would lose even more money.

If I understand what you said then teams that make bad contract deals wouldn't be "punished" for their mistake but the league as a whole would pay it for them. That doesn't seem equitable for the teams that didn't and don't make those bad mistakes. It seems it would encourage teams to take a lot more risk on players with questionable health (Chandler Parsons would be thrilled to sign another huge contract, and if he's not healthy, cut him and the league will pay it out).

What incentive does a team have to offer JR Smith more than the vet minimum?

What incentive does JR have to choose the team that offers the most money when it makes no difference to his bottom line? This is why I suggested the guarantee should only be for a percentage of the total deal ... if JR signs for 2 years for $14M he gets say 75% of the difference from his old team (off the cap) rather than 100% so it's worth 25 cents on the dollar for him to take the bigger deal from another team. Maybe 75% is not enough incentive and it should be 50%, but 100% is a problem. Or maybe the guarantee should be extended to be 100% but over 15 or 20 years (which could have the added benefit of helping protect players financially from themselves).

IndyRealist
06-13-2018, 11:46 AM
Team salaries are absolutely not irrelevant. You donít think teams look at the two teams in the finals paying massive tax bills and wonder if they can afford to compete? OKC was a poster child. They said they couldnít afford to keep harden and Ibaka, so they had to trade one. But realistically, they could have kept everyone, but would have had to pay huge tax bills. You donít think owners wouldnít love a cap that would prevent that from even being an option. Same with Cleveland right now. They basically are at the mercy of Lebron every year, and every year he can basically force their bill slightly higher. You donít think Gilbert wouldnít love a cap that says he canít spend more.

I get what youíre saying. Owners would be reluctant to bump the cap floor in case things go horribly wrong. But realistically, if every team drops to the minimum expenditure, thereís a ton of problems in the league and the league is probably on the brink of failing. I donít see that being an issue in the next 5-10 years, which is what a renegotiated CBA would cover. And even if they have to give up a percentage of earnings to get this done, thereís no way it would be more than a percent or two. No chance the players get anywhere close to 60%.

I guess we just disagree on this one. I think you can sell the owners in giving up a percent or two in order to take away the ability to spend crazy amounts of money for championship teams and giving them non guaranteed deals, to make roster turnover easier.

The players sacrifice guaranteed deals for a percent or two higher total earnings. And you can consider removing max deals, but Iím actually not sure if the players are pro or con max deals as a whole.

Say the player's cut of BRI is $4 billion next year. Every single team decides to only spend the minimum, at $90 million. The players still get $4 billion. Now say all the teams go into the luxury tax with $130 million salaries. The players still get $4 billion. They are guaranteed that money by the CBA. The actual payrolls do not affect how much salary goes to players. I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain it. You are not getting players to give up GUARANTEED money for a couple of percentage points. You'd have to be delusional to think that.

warfelg
06-13-2018, 11:50 AM
What makes you think players will give up guaranteed contracts? They wonít.

And thatís not the league covering for cut players. Itís players paying for cut player by not using full BRI for current salaries.

Itís like my first job, my parents took 25% of my paycheck each week and put it in a college fund to pay for supplies. The ďlegacy fundsĒ or ďtrust fundĒ for players is the exact same thing. Players ensuring theyíll get paid.

I also donít buy teams are losing money since franchise valuations continually go up.

Scoots
06-13-2018, 01:17 PM
What makes you think players will give up guaranteed contracts? They wonít.

And thatís not the league covering for cut players. Itís players paying for cut player by not using full BRI for current salaries.

Itís like my first job, my parents took 25% of my paycheck each week and put it in a college fund to pay for supplies. The ďlegacy fundsĒ or ďtrust fundĒ for players is the exact same thing. Players ensuring theyíll get paid.

I also donít buy teams are losing money since franchise valuations continually go up.

I don't think players will be asked to give up guaranteed contract ... if they were asked with the right incentives they probably would ... but I don't think it's going to happen.

The money in the reserve pool comes from the teams in the form of withheld pay, using that money to pay cut players implies that the money to cut players will come from the reserve which is filled by all teams ... it should come from the team that screwed up in signing the deal in the first place.

If your parents took the 25% from you then your brother got fired because he sucked at his and they gave it to him would you think that was fair? Or are you saying the individual cut player would only get paid the amount they put in to the pool?

I doubt teams are losing money too, but they claimed they were to get the BRI to where it is now ... they will complain at people moving it up.

IndyRealist
06-13-2018, 01:30 PM
As far as losing money is concerned, prior to the new tv deal yes some teams probably operated at a loss. Team valuations only continued to go up, however. Amazon operates at a loss every single year, and yet it is one of the most valuable companies in retail. With the new tv deal, I suspect every team is in the black now.

crewfan13
06-13-2018, 02:32 PM
Say the player's cut of BRI is $4 billion next year. Every single team decides to only spend the minimum, at $90 million. The players still get $4 billion. Now say all the teams go into the luxury tax with $130 million salaries. The players still get $4 billion. They are guaranteed that money by the CBA. The actual payrolls do not affect how much salary goes to players. I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain it. You are not getting players to give up GUARANTEED money for a couple of percentage points. You'd have to be delusional to think that.

But thats not what Iím saying. By allowing teams to spend into the luxury tax, youíre basically allowing them, in a way, to buy a championship. The two teams in the finals were in the tax. In order to compete with GS, itís likely Houston gets deep into the tax in the near future. If Boston wants to keep their team together, they will probably go pretty deep in the tax. If philly can land a stud this offseason, theyíll end up into the tax when their young guys expire. The league is setting up to the point where you almost have to spend deep into the tax to be a championship contender. Eliminate that, and thatís a plus for owners.

And the guaranteed contracts bit is entirely seperate though anyways. Non or partially guaranteed deals donít actually benefit the owners. It benefits the league, as it allows for more player movement since teams can free up cap space. More player movement should mean more parity, especially if teams arenít stuck in purgatory with bad deals. And non or partially guaranteed deals can benefit the players. Thatís the whole point Iím making generally.

The owners benefit from a hard cap because they canít be forced to decide between paying insane tax bills and competing or not paying the tax and sucking. A cap for players would result in a similar share of money overall, so it doesnít significantly impact them as a whole from a monetary standpoint. But if you inplement a hard cap, you now run into how teams can or canít be built. Thatís where the guaranteed deals come into play. This issue doesnít impact the owners bottom lines. It only affects how an owner can build his team. But from a players standpoint, this impacts them more than the actual implementation of the hard cap individually. Injured or underperforming players lose money with non or partially guaranteed deals. Healthy, consistent and productive players get rewarded since thereís now more money in free agency.

And by more money, I mean you know longer have the 8th guy on the team eating up $12 mill per year. So when guys hit free agency, the money pool is larger, since thatís money is again available. Take John Henson for the bucks. He makes $11 mill next year. If he were cut, heíd probably sign for no more than $5 mill, which dumps $6 mill back into the FA pool for the same number of players. So that with 20+ players around the league, and thereís some real cash opening up.

IndyRealist
06-13-2018, 04:09 PM
But thats not what Iím saying. By allowing teams to spend into the luxury tax, youíre basically allowing them, in a way, to buy a championship. The two teams in the finals were in the tax. In order to compete with GS, itís likely Houston gets deep into the tax in the near future. If Boston wants to keep their team together, they will probably go pretty deep in the tax. If philly can land a stud this offseason, theyíll end up into the tax when their young guys expire. The league is setting up to the point where you almost have to spend deep into the tax to be a championship contender. Eliminate that, and thatís a plus for owners.

And the guaranteed contracts bit is entirely seperate though anyways. Non or partially guaranteed deals donít actually benefit the owners. It benefits the league, as it allows for more player movement since teams can free up cap space. More player movement should mean more parity, especially if teams arenít stuck in purgatory with bad deals. And non or partially guaranteed deals can benefit the players. Thatís the whole point Iím making generally.

The owners benefit from a hard cap because they canít be forced to decide between paying insane tax bills and competing or not paying the tax and sucking. A cap for players would result in a similar share of money overall, so it doesnít significantly impact them as a whole from a monetary standpoint. But if you inplement a hard cap, you now run into how teams can or canít be built. Thatís where the guaranteed deals come into play. This issue doesnít impact the owners bottom lines. It only affects how an owner can build his team. But from a players standpoint, this impacts them more than the actual implementation of the hard cap individually. Injured or underperforming players lose money with non or partially guaranteed deals. Healthy, consistent and productive players get rewarded since thereís now more money in free agency.

And by more money, I mean you know longer have the 8th guy on the team eating up $12 mill per year. So when guys hit free agency, the money pool is larger, since thatís money is again available. Take John Henson for the bucks. He makes $11 mill next year. If he were cut, heíd probably sign for no more than $5 mill, which dumps $6 mill back into the FA pool for the same number of players. So that with 20+ players around the league, and thereís some real cash opening up.

Your first response to me in this line of thought was in regards to a post about guaranteed contracts. I went back and looked. You're now talking about a different subject which is why none of this makes any sense.

Scoots
06-13-2018, 04:52 PM
To review:

Hard cap would have to be considerably higher than it is now and would need a CBA change to implement it.

Hard cap would be a problem with guaranteed contracts so there needs to be some way to mitigate guaranteed contracts to keep probably a third of the NBA teams to be stuck in salary cap hell year after year.

I don't believe a hard cap will make a significant difference in which teams win the most since regardless of rules better owners tend to end up with front offices and coaches and talent and win more. And the reality of the situation is most likely that Silver mentioned it just to make the complainers happy for a bit.

crewfan13
06-13-2018, 09:56 PM
To review:

Hard cap would have to be considerably higher than it is now and would need a CBA change to implement it.

Hard cap would be a problem with guaranteed contracts so there needs to be some way to mitigate guaranteed contracts to keep probably a third of the NBA teams to be stuck in salary cap hell year after year.

I don't believe a hard cap will make a significant difference in which teams win the most since regardless of rules better owners tend to end up with front offices and coaches and talent and win more. And the reality of the situation is most likely that Silver mentioned it just to make the complainers happy for a bit.

I do tend to agree with the last part. Not because good owners, but partially just because itís such a star driven league. I wouldnít call dan Gilbert a great owner, but he has a ring because he lucked into Lebron, who also happened to grow up basically right down the road from Cleveland in the grand scheme of things.

Golden state drafted incredibly well, but they still landed a good stroke of luck by happening to have their success coincide with an incredibly rare massive cap jump and coincide with a top player also being a free agent. They still would have been really good and could still have a few rings, but theyíre a different team without Durant obvisously.

The nba is still going to come down to the top few players at the end of the day more than any team sport. Good management can help get you there, but thereís plenty of times where a little luck helps in getting one of those top few players. But I do think a hard cap would help. It at least makes it a little more difficult to assemble a super team.

Scoots
06-14-2018, 01:12 AM
I do tend to agree with the last part. Not because good owners, but partially just because itís such a star driven league. I wouldnít call dan Gilbert a great owner, but he has a ring because he lucked into Lebron, who also happened to grow up basically right down the road from Cleveland in the grand scheme of things.

Golden state drafted incredibly well, but they still landed a good stroke of luck by happening to have their success coincide with an incredibly rare massive cap jump and coincide with a top player also being a free agent. They still would have been really good and could still have a few rings, but theyíre a different team without Durant obvisously.

The nba is still going to come down to the top few players at the end of the day more than any team sport. Good management can help get you there, but thereís plenty of times where a little luck helps in getting one of those top few players. But I do think a hard cap would help. It at least makes it a little more difficult to assemble a super team.

My point was that independent of freak luck, in general better owners tend to have a better record. Some teams are going to take better advantage of the rules, and some, like the Kings, will somehow screw up year after year after year.

prodigy
06-16-2018, 09:55 AM
Love the hard cap idea. LOVE IT!! I feel like oprah, you get a hard cap and you get a hard cap.

Scoots
06-16-2018, 12:07 PM
Love the hard cap idea. LOVE IT!! I feel like opera, you get a hard cap and you get a hard cap.

Opera. :slowclap:

prodigy
06-16-2018, 02:18 PM
Opera. :slowclap:

thanks for finding that error. I meant oprah. I'm sure you couldn't have figured it out.

Vinylman
06-17-2018, 11:46 AM
My point was that independent of freak luck, in general better owners tend to have a better record. Some teams are going to take better advantage of the rules, and some, like the Kings, will somehow screw up year after year after year.

the warriors are a one chip teams without the cap jump that let them sign KD...


not to mention the following decisions that had nothing to do with the FO


1. Barnes turned down the extension of 15-16 million before the 2015-16 season (seems like the GS FO isn't the geniuses you think).

2. Mark the idiot Cuban agrees to take on Bogut's deal to clear the cap for a conditional second rounder so the Warriors had enough cap to sign the shemale.



The NBA policies on the cap / player exceptions / contract extensions / etc... have a much greater impact on parity than some dumb geniuses in the FO.

Scoots
06-17-2018, 12:11 PM
the warriors are a one chip teams without the cap jump that let them sign the shemale...


not to mention the following decisions that had nothing to do with the FO


1. Barnes turned down the extension of 15-16 million before the 2015-16 season (seems like the GS FO isn't the geniuses you think).

2. Mark the idiot Cuban agrees to take on Bogut's deal to clear the cap for a conditional second rounder so the Warriors had enough cap to sign the shemale.



The NBA policies on the cap / player exceptions / contract extensions / etc... have a much greater impact on parity than some dumb geniuses in the FO.

The Warriors offered Barnes 16M and he said no thanks ... what about that makes the front office dumb? That they offered him that much or that he said no?

warfelg
06-17-2018, 12:37 PM
The Warriors offered Barnes 16M and he said no thanks ... what about that makes the front office dumb? That they offered him that much or that he said no?

I don't think he's saying that, more that there's a max contract provision in place, and knowing teams would have the cap to sign it aided in the Mavericks being stupid as opposed to anything else.

IndyRealist
06-17-2018, 02:18 PM
the warriors are a one chip teams without the cap jump that let them sign the shemale...


not to mention the following decisions that had nothing to do with the FO


1. Barnes turned down the extension of 15-16 million before the 2015-16 season (seems like the GS FO isn't the geniuses you think).

2. Mark the idiot Cuban agrees to take on Bogut's deal to clear the cap for a conditional second rounder so the Warriors had enough cap to sign the shemale.



The NBA policies on the cap / player exceptions / contract extensions / etc... have a much greater impact on parity than some dumb geniuses in the FO.

There's no way to know if they would only have one championship had KD not joined the team. They won without him, it stand to reason they had every chance to win more without him.

Vinylman
06-17-2018, 03:59 PM
The Warriors offered Barnes 16M and he said no thanks ... what about that makes the front office dumb? That they offered him that much or that he said no?

that they offered... he says yes and you get no Durant...

not to mention barnes is trash...

but I know I know the GS front office walks on water

Scoots
06-17-2018, 05:09 PM
that they offered... he says yes and you get no Durant...

not to mention barnes is trash...

but I know I know the GS front office walks on water

No, they certainly don't walk on water. Had he said yes they would have gone forward with him. I was saying at the time that if he wanted more than 18M a year they had to let him go and try to find a replacement for him. The fact that KD came meant the Warriors didn't have to massively over pay for Barnes.