Wall make?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-19-2020, 02:45 PM
cattusmaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoots

Not in NBA salary he didn't. He did make $33M one year, and he was worth it more than LeBron based on what he did for NBA revenue.

Sorry you're correct. Always thought it was much more based on his impact to the league and being GOAT. He sets the gold standard for big time clutch-ness when defensive play was much more brutal.
10-19-2020, 03:00 PM
Hawkeye15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoots

Not in NBA salary he didn't. He did make $33M one year, and he was worth it more than LeBron based on what he did for NBA revenue.

$33 million in the 90s was also more like $55M today
10-19-2020, 03:24 PM
cattusmaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by crewfan13

The players have collectively bargained what percentage of revenue they get. A hard cap doesn't cap their earnings in any way really.

The max contrsct is in place to protect the mid tier free agent, who are a decent chunk of the NBPA. Without it, the mid tier would dry up. You'd have a bunch of guys making $30 mill plus and then league minimum types. It's the same reason stuff like the mid level exception exist.

I'd be all for a hard cap and no max salary. It makes teams be smart and at least opens up a chance for less ideal markets to push for a FA. Like the OP said, guys like AD will always get the max. So when teams like LA can offer the same as Utah or Milwuakee, there's almost no chance those guys go to Utah or Milwuakee. But if all of a sudden Utah can offer AD $8 mill a year more than anyone cuz of their cap situation, you at least make him make a choice. He may still choose LA or a different market, but at least Utah was able to bring something different to the table.

NO to Hard Cap cause its the main reason why owners are so wealthy off of talents of players due to parity which is overrated. Bigger market deserve to spend more for the best players then small market teams unless these owners with big pockets rather spend more to win as oppose to just making money from the league's large revenue sharing pool. Players contract are subject to restructuring yearly if their performance declines greatly that are not injury related or face termination. This will eliminate players who plays hard for the big contracts and then basically do nothing afterwards which will impact a bunch of lazy bums to get their act together.
10-19-2020, 03:31 PM
cattusmaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYKalltheway

why would you fine a player for that? are we going to fine them for catching a cold too?

Not me but from the league as a deterrent because most likely the player was at fault by breaking protocol in a bubble environment. Its not a huge fine and would be proportional to their salary like 1% of the yearly pay that would go towards the Covid19 response fund for WHO.
10-19-2020, 03:36 PM
cattusmaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

$33 million in the 90s was also more like $55M today

Actually closer to 44 mil perhaps. Inflation wasn't that bad from the 90s onward.

Now if we go back to the 70s when the gold standard was eliminated....then were talking [emoji23]
10-20-2020, 03:56 PM
McAllen Tx

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoots

It wouldn't prevent it. It would just mean they'd have to compromise on the money they make.

I think if you put a big enough gap between a teams top player and 2nd player the 2nd player will move around.
10-20-2020, 04:00 PM
McAllen Tx

Quote:

Originally Posted by cattusmaru

Set hard cap at 175 million with 3 supermax per team. All teams should be able to trade players no matter how much they make for any reason. Eliminate load management. If players don't earn their max money = performance ratio for 2 straight seasons that are not injury related, they can be waived. Any fake injuries will be subject to termination of contract and fined by the league. Any player who test positive for Corona are fined.

I think this would do the opposite. 3 max players per team? The leagues top 15 players will all be on 5 total teams.
10-20-2020, 05:28 PM
cattusmaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by McAllen Tx

I think this would do the opposite. 3 max players per team? The leagues top 15 players will all be on 5 total teams.

Unfortunately that's is due to having pay scales which caps how much star players can make that are directly tied to having a salary cap set in the name of parity. Once we eliminate the cap and pay the players based on their true value and importance on the team, it will create an environment conducive to winning like never before because vets can freely choose to play where they wish and not be limited to play on teams that has room to pay them which involves a lot of planning and tinkering to manipulate.

We'll keep the pay scale on drafted players as is but eliminate the lottery which had been suspected to be non-conspicuously rigged as we'll go back to setting the draft order base on team win lost record.
10-21-2020, 10:16 AM
KnicksorBust

First of all, I'm so relieved someone finally made this thread. I toss and turn every night worried that LeBron James does not have a big enough max contract. So thank you.

Second of all, how much of a $100 million hard cap would you be willing to spend on LeBron?
10-21-2020, 12:05 PM
Scoots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

$33 million in the 90s was also more like $55M today

Yes, but that doesn't mean he made $67 million in a season. Also he made that kind of money for 2 years, he also made $4M a year at his peak.
10-21-2020, 12:09 PM
Scoots

Quote:

Originally Posted by cattusmaru

NO to Hard Cap cause its the main reason why owners are so wealthy off of talents of players due to parity which is overrated. Bigger market deserve to spend more for the best players then small market teams unless these owners with big pockets rather spend more to win as oppose to just making money from the league's large revenue sharing pool. Players contract are subject to restructuring yearly if their performance declines greatly that are not injury related or face termination. This will eliminate players who plays hard for the big contracts and then basically do nothing afterwards which will impact a bunch of lazy bums to get their act together.

You know that luxury taxes and money over the cap are all part of the revenue sharing calculations right? A hard cap or not the players make the same money.

And the owners are owners because they are rich. The hard cap doesn't make the owners rich.
10-21-2020, 12:16 PM
Scoots

Quote:

Originally Posted by cattusmaru

Unfortunately that's is due to having pay scales which caps how much star players can make that are directly tied to having a salary cap set in the name of parity. Once we eliminate the cap and pay the players based on their true value and importance on the team, it will create an environment conducive to winning like never before because vets can freely choose to play where they wish and not be limited to play on teams that has room to pay them which involves a lot of planning and tinkering to manipulate.

We'll keep the pay scale on drafted players as is but eliminate the lottery which had been suspected to be non-conspicuously rigged as we'll go back to setting the draft order base on team win lost record.

No matter what the rules are the better teams will move to the top.

And the lottery is not rigged.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page