Would a hard cap make the NBA more competitive like the NFL. Where teams in Green Bay, Kansas City, Denver, & Tampa Bay thrive . The Lakers & Nets are treating the cap, & Ooooh, so scary, Luxary Tax like a joke. If the Hard Cap was 140 mil., Both teams would have to cut major talent to fit within the cap. Teams like Portland & Denver would still have about 6 mil. to burn to reach that hard cap . Just saying. Really hard to compete at an even playing field when big markets can just laugh at the tax bill.
No, i'm of the exact opposite mindset. I think they need to get rid of both the draft and the salary cap altogether.
Baseball does have an advantage from it's Minor League systems. So Teams like the A's , Royal', & Rays can stock pile so many draft picks in their systems, they're bound to hit some home runs on occasion. And be competitive. Only to become the talent resource of Big Market Teams like the Yankees & Dodgers. But agree on Hard Capping MLB as well. IT would be much more fun to see all the teams at say 160 mil. No More Yankees & Dodgers over 200.
If you want to win, you spend. If someone like Paul Allen wanted to pay Lebron 100 mil to play, he should be allowed to. It's no worse than having all the teams in different markets play by the same rules like it is now. What about if a rich owner in any market wanted to throw 50 mil/yr for the number 1 prospect? Let them do it.
No. Just make it a rule that renounced vets can't sign teams for less than $10 mil/year. This way, team can't sign countless vets for vet min. This would cause a lot less buyouts, and a lot less superteams.
But some of those vets aren't worth 10 mil. And that rule would prevent some of them from getting a new team at all.
I know the basics, but I have no clue how the cap works, even having it broken down by team guys multiple times…… curious why there ISN’T a cap.
That would fuck over players who deserve to be in the NBA, but can't necessarily command $10M+ per year. I agree that salary caps, maximum contracts and luxury taxes should just be removed. Yes, you could argue that that makes it harder for smaller markets, but that's not entirely clear--a small market with a wealthy and passionate owner (like Paul Allen) might actually do better if they can offer more than a "max" or can go over some spending limits. When everyone is capped and can't realistically go over a certain amount for a player, the players choose by other factors, like market size, night life, weather, etc. That's going to favor the LAs, Miamis, New Yorks, etc.
Why? If your owner doesn't want to pay, your team will lose. So naturally, spending would increase and the market would eventually land on the right valuation and naturally adjust to market differences, etc. It would be a lot more organic than the artificial cap in place now. There is a reason why inherently... free market economics works. Obviously, this isn't 100% parallel to a scenario like the NBA, but the merits are there. (ugh, as a staunch believer in leftist thinking, I can't believe even I think like this)
The current soft cap and luxury has turned into a system where a couple teams have a chance at a title with enormous spending. Its stupid and I agree should be changed. One solution would be a hard cap, I'd prefer that to what teams currently have. Change max contracts to 45% of the cap; so there is no more "big 3"... even a "big 2" means the rest of the roster is basically vet minimums. Raise the vet minimum and don't count any minimums on the cap. Its stupid when teams currently become hard capped and cant even sign minimum guys. Another solution is go back to having a salary cap with a simple "larry bird exception" that only allows teams to exceed the cap to resign their own players. Classify "own players" as having played 5 seasons with the team, that benefit doesn't carry over in trades. That way teams won't lose an all star player such as Larry Bird. But teams over the cap cant add salary in a trade nor sign MLE guys nor do sign and trades, etc. Then players can sign a fat contract with their current team or go to another team that has salary cap space (and thus not stacked roster).
Somehow, every other industry manages to survive without salary caps. What you mean to say is that owners would make less money and they'd be upset, though still profitable.
And in free markets, people get priced out. Small markets like Portland would get priced out. Not every team has the ability to spend recklessly.
They wouldn't get priced out, they would simply make lesser profits. Which should be price of winning.
I believe max deals for players and salary caps are hurting the smaller market teams (in general), which is the opposite of the stated goal. You have a ton of "max players" that are not of equal skill and value. If a team had to pay LBJ or KD what they were truly worth, that would make it much harder for them to fill out a roster. Also, under the current setup, once the teams with cap space spend their money, again, you're left with the better teams usually getting the best MLE and TPMLE guys, only widening the inbalance, not leveling the playing field.