Is it time to Hard Cap NBA Teams?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
PtldPlatypus said:
Eliminate the cap, but also mandate 100% revenue sharing. Give the small-market teams the ability to benefit from the large-market media deals.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I think the logic for revenue sharing is unassailable: no team is profitable by itself. Fans don't pay big ticket prices or tune in on TV to watch famous players stand around. Teams are only profitable as part of a league, so all the teams need each other. The league revenues should thus be considered shared revenues, earned collectively.

I do think that if revenue sharing was put into place, there should be a salary floor. Team owners should not be allowed to simply pocket shared revenue and not spend on their team.
 
Minstrel said:
I completely agree. I think the logic for revenue sharing is unassailable: no team is profitable by itself. Fans don't pay big ticket prices or tune in on TV to watch famous players stand around. Teams are only profitable as part of a league, so all the teams need each other. The league revenues should thus be considered shared revenues, earned collectively.

I do think that if revenue sharing was put into place, there should be a salary floor. Team owners should not be allowed to simply pocket shared revenue and not spend on their team.
Click to expand...
There is a salary floor currently
 
RR7 said:
There is a salary floor currently
Click to expand...

That's true, but it would need to be significantly higher, IMO. Right now, if I understand it correctly, it's just a floor that ensures that players are guaranteed to receive their CBA-mandated percentage of league revenue, not a floor that really signifies trying to win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
I don't think the salary cap should be eliminated or hard capped.

My idea has always been to make the super max a substantial amount of money, like twice the amount a player could get with another team. However, the twist is that it only counts against the cap for 1/2 of the contract or if they get traded or leave instead of re-signing their new team it counts against the cap double what they make.

For example, let's say Dame was a free agent. The Blazers could offer him $60 million a year and it only counts against the cap as $30 million or he could leave and only get $30 million on his contract. If he left the team he signed with would have that contract count as $60 million against their cap even though they signed him for $30 million.

This would prevent a good portion of stars from leaving the team that drafted them and screw over teams that tried to form super teams.
 
illmatic99 said:
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)
Click to expand...

Free Market with no cap is the way to go, imo.
 
As of right now, teams like Portland who keep their stars get penalized because he counts as so much of the cap. Giving teams the ability to still sign or trade for other quality players to put around their super max would help the league greatly. Dame shouldn't have to be questioned as to why he took the max.
 
Free market with a limited set of 'actors' always results in concentration of talent - if you want any kind of semi parity you will need a cap to regulate the competition.

Formula 1 had exactly that problem, it was once a sport new teams could come in and compete, but the ever growing budgets have made it so that the last 15 or so championships were among only 3 teams really (if you account for name and ownership changes). Renault (not small teams) and McLaren are the last ones to win out of the teams that are Ferrari, Mercedes and red bull in 2008 and 2006.

Technically, 2009, Brawn won and it was a small team, but it was really a very well funded Honda team that went out of the sport, so Brawn bought a lot of IP that was invested already, when regulation changes assured no-one else was ready for the big diffusers era - and the company was bought a year later by Mercedes which pretty much dominated the last decade.

This is the first year with a cap - and the competition is better than it has been in years (some of it is regulation changes, but still). Hopefully next year with regulation changes it will be even better. Unregulated expenditures in popular sports with limited teams and "actors" (talent) always leads to a limit on competitiveness.
 
Last edited:
hoopsjock said:
I don't think the salary cap should be eliminated or hard capped.

My idea has always been to make the super max a substantial amount of money, like twice the amount a player could get with another team. However, the twist is that it only counts against the cap for 1/2 of the contract or if they get traded or leave instead of re-signing their new team it counts against the cap double what they make.

For example, let's say Dame was a free agent. The Blazers could offer him $60 million a year and it only counts against the cap as $30 million or he could leave and only get $30 million on his contract. If he left the team he signed with would have that contract count as $60 million against their cap even though they signed him for $30 million.

This would prevent a good portion of stars from leaving the team that drafted them and screw over teams that tried to form super teams.
Click to expand...
Love this idea Hoops. Bravo!
 
hoopsjock said:
I don't think the salary cap should be eliminated or hard capped.

My idea has always been to make the super max a substantial amount of money, like twice the amount a player could get with another team. However, the twist is that it only counts against the cap for 1/2 of the contract or if they get traded or leave instead of re-signing their new team it counts against the cap double what they make.

For example, let's say Dame was a free agent. The Blazers could offer him $60 million a year and it only counts against the cap as $30 million or he could leave and only get $30 million on his contract. If he left the team he signed with would have that contract count as $60 million against their cap even though they signed him for $30 million.

This would prevent a good portion of stars from leaving the team that drafted them and screw over teams that tried to form super teams.
Click to expand...
:cheers:
 
Minstrel said:
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.
Click to expand...
They shouldn't accept a buyout then.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
They shouldn't accept a buyout then.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you just mean bought out veterans. You said "renounced veterans," which usually means players teams renounce in free agency so they don't have a caphold applied.

I still disagree with that measure, but that's less of a problem.
 
Hard cap. Yes. Larry Bird rule. Get creative with teams losing players like MLB and draft picks. Let teams waive guys and amnesty salary etc every five years or so, even if it’s just for a portion of the salary. Let a team cut a check to the Andrew Nicholson’s of the world to just get past that nonsense.
 
hoopsjock said:
I don't think the salary cap should be eliminated or hard capped.

My idea has always been to make the super max a substantial amount of money, like twice the amount a player could get with another team. However, the twist is that it only counts against the cap for 1/2 of the contract or if they get traded or leave instead of re-signing their new team it counts against the cap double what they make.

For example, let's say Dame was a free agent. The Blazers could offer him $60 million a year and it only counts against the cap as $30 million or he could leave and only get $30 million on his contract. If he left the team he signed with would have that contract count as $60 million against their cap even though they signed him for $30 million.

This would prevent a good portion of stars from leaving the team that drafted them and screw over teams that tried to form super teams.
Click to expand...

Very interesting idea!

How would you address the wide disparity of talent getting MLE, TPMLE, and Minimum deals that seems to be an even bigger problem in creating imbalance?
 
The cap is actually fucking us.

If we're a small market team, and we clearly aren't going to compete with the big cities for free agents, all we can do is offer more money..... but we can't even do that. So now we're just trying to get people to come here for the same money......
 
Hoopguru said:
NBA 2021 Luxury Tax Tracker | Spotrac
https://www.spotrac.com › nba › tax › 2021
Check out the cost of winning
Click to expand...

what really stands out to me is Phoenix. They just won it all and have a salary less than half of the league. Thats impressive and says to me they may be around for a long time because they can pay more.
They might be my pick to win it all again this year because they have room to make moves, if need be, to add more talent by the trade deadline.
 
Natebishop3 said:
The cap is actually fucking us.

If we're a small market team, and we clearly aren't going to compete with the big cities for free agents, all we can do is offer more money..... but we can't even do that. So now we're just trying to get people to come here for the same money......
Click to expand...

As I've said before, I think it's the individual cap/exceptions (max player, MLE, TPMLE) that create the biggest inbalance. I'd like to see a team throw 70% of their cap money at a KD/Giannis and have to field a team with the remaining 30%.

Portland would be crazy to not give Dame the max under the current CBA, but in an open market, there is no way Dame would make the same amount as KD/Giannis in an open market. This means the teams with the very best players are actually getting them at a discount, but the teams with a top 10-15 player are having to pay much closer to full price.

Then you add that the teams with the best players (who are on a discount) are more likely to get the best MLE and TPMLE guys (on a discount), and the talent disparity grows even more. Lastly, the guys who have man a ton of cash, decide they're fine taking the min to play with the best team, and the imbalance grows even greater.
 
Tince said:
Very interesting idea!

How would you address the wide disparity of talent getting MLE, TPMLE, and Minimum deals that seems to be an even bigger problem in creating imbalance?
Click to expand...
I actually don't think that is a problem at all. If players want to take less money to play on contenders then there is no real way to stop that. I think the impact of those players is being overrated.
 
hoopsjock said:
I actually don't think that is a problem at all. If players want to take less money to play on contenders then there is no real way to stop that. I think the impact of those players is being overrated.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

So to be clear: You think the top 2-3 players on a roster have by far the biggest impact on a teams success than the overall depth of talent on a roster?
 
Tince said:
Interesting.

So to be clear: You think the top 2-3 players on a roster have by far the biggest impact on a teams success than the overall depth of talent on a roster?
Click to expand...
No, what I'm saying is that I don't think it's what causes the imbalance. The Blazers signed three players, two of which were very solid pickups, for minimum contracts. If you draft well and sign the right players then I don't think say the Lakers signing other players for the minimum makes it unfair. Those players were never coming to Portland anyway.
 
Orion Bailey said:
what really stands out to me is Phoenix. They just won it all and have a salary less than half of the league. Thats impressive and says to me they may be around for a long time because they can pay more.
They might be my pick to win it all again this year because they have room to make moves, if need be, to add more talent by the trade deadline.
Click to expand...

I have the opposite take. I expect the 21-22 Suns to not catch the breaks the 20-21 Suns did and have a similar result as the Heat found after their 19-20 run where things fell their way.
 
hoopsjock said:
No, what I'm saying is that I don't think it's what causes the imbalance. The Blazers signed three players, two of which were very solid pickups, for minimum contracts. If you draft well and sign the right players then I don't think say the Lakers signing other players for the minimum makes it unfair. Those players were never coming to Portland anyway.
Click to expand...

You don't think teams like the Lakers, Nets, Clippers, etc are signing more talented MLE and Min players than an average team?
 
Tince said:
I have the opposite take. I expect the 21-22 Suns to not catch the breaks the 20-21 Suns did and have a similar result as the Heat found after their 19-20 run where things fell their way.
Click to expand...

money shows they can spend to improve. And id say phoenix has much better young talent than the heat.
 
Orion Bailey said:
money shows they can spend to improve. And id say phoenix has much better young talent than the heat.
Click to expand...

Do you think Suns ownership is committed to spend the money it will take to keep the young talent?

I bet the Suns to win the championship back in March and now I would bet they don't make the finals next year. Love Monty though!
 
Tince said:
Do you think Suns ownership is committed to spend the money it will take to keep the young talent?

I bet the Suns to win the championship back in March and now I would bet they don't make the finals next year. Love Monty though!
Click to expand...

not sure. I dont know anything about the owner(s).
But i know this. Its been a loooonnngg time since they made the finals. Id do/pay whatever it takes to keep that talent and continue to improve to make it a long lastsming run/ possible dynasty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top